FT MEADE 
GenCol 1 







LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, 


Shelf ...CLZiit ] 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 








n: y. 4 - .., j 


. ; •vv-*s%-4^ 


w 

.= ,f :*., . , • 






,0 


> 




r 




•j* 


m. t « 


/ . • 

^ . ; 

7 >' * V'. ' 


.,.i^ - /..S T 

■'>* vf'^ 


* 1 . 


§''i.--.i- ■; 


J 



i - 


■ ■■ ..■is$^*s^ 


I . 


i. 


^ 




..Vi VJ 


V -J,'. 


1 . 

. t 


«' ^ 




./tJV 


• . • . A 


I * 







f X ' 



\: 


■■■-' -'^‘P 
■ . '■ -'v f‘,\ 

*“ V '.- ■“^*- 


V 


% 




-I 


' ✓ 


. I 


t 

'• K 




>v ' ■■•■ 


*i- 


> ■• ■ 


> ' ■’'• V *'^ ■ -'^'v • 

-v/ ■ V " • ■ 


7^ 


>f<'. 


1 ^ 1 


"• '■> • , : >.v- \u^^U. ^V' --''' 

■ v- V ■*. r>v v/> 

■ v-Vv^V- 

,vr:v' 


1 


^ ^ • Z' • r 

V' '-.r'’ ■'•• 

v». : 


nr* ’ ^ ^ • V -w ’ s 

I'j- . •■' - • 




'•* V \ 

•«> .y.c . - •'* ‘ • ^ 


% 

. .'K 


« /■ •• 




rf.*y ■ ■^; /' ' '/>' ■♦ .\- • » . , «■ . ‘ * ■ • - , . ' , ■ ' . --c^' '. ’ ' 

V:-vv-;-;vV r ' ' 


T- 


■ \ 


ht 


V'^r- r/>^:‘:-> V'-'VVr ■ ■: >’ . x -. ‘ •'><'■ 'K •./* ' -•■'■ ^ •; • ' - '«v 

V'-v.i ’ 'XX.^. ■':■> ' ■= ■> '/-■■X X .X ■ 

io. *!{.••••.;*••-<• .^5 5 ^ i' ! •■ S\.‘ S' ,'V.-v‘.*>.. . <'■ . ••■.••>*-• ;* .-■'•'. • ,i<i'-' 






?te t 


■ 


y 

» 


s 


• > % ', • 


^%>* • - ^ V ■*• * 

. 'V-- 




f»- 

Wl 




•S-- .; r: 





. .• \ »■ . 

- ,*• -V ' 


.r-w-c^ i* ^ » 
••', ^-V '■ 


- r . » - A 

-r ‘ 


. » 

*. 


.'If v*' 


•»r '.•? 




•A.'--" 



-• r 


fji' 


I'. 


#. J> 







I 




Y . > • 


v * v.tW 
^JsC t V. t;. 


- W' 


" .C' 

•• * • 


<. 

- - -r. 




4 < 


t > 


vHt' 


^ ' 




C './ 




« “ 


.t 


’ ^i- 

■ 

•• * VJ # j M 

- ■ 









Deacon Herbert’s Bible-class 





JAMES FREEMAN CLARKE 





BOSTON 

Geo. H. Ellis, 141 Franklin Street 
1890 



COPYEIGHT 
BV GEO, H. ELLIS 
1890 



“Deacon Herbert’s Bible-class” was first written 
as a series of papers, and printed in the Christian 
Inquirer^ many years ago. These papers ha'\e been 
collected and put into their present shape with the 
hope that they may be of some use to Bible-classes 
arid Sunday-school Teachers. 

L. F. C. 


jVIag>"OLIA, JuJy 31, 1890. 






t 











J 


0 



4 * 





t ^ 


I 



Deacon Herbert’s Bible-class. 


I. 

THE WAY WE HELPED OUR MINISTER TO WRITE 
GOOD SERMONS. 

One evening (it was Monday) I stopped at 
the post-office after the school was out, to get 
my papers, with a secret hope also, I admit, that 
I might find a letter in a fair female hand. The 
mail was not sorted ; and, while waiting, I 
listened to a conversation which was going on 
in the office. 

“That sermon yesterday was too had,” said 
young Townsend, the lawyer. “I really think 
I shall leave off going to meeting. It does me 
no good. I feel so vexed and ashamed that I 
should be better at home.” 

“What was the matter with the sermon?” 
said Farmer Haystack. “I was sick on Sun- 
day, and stayed at home.” 

“The whole parish will be sick on Sunday, 


8 DEACON HEKBEKt’s BIBLE-CLASS 

soon,” replied Townsend. “Matter? l^Totliing 
was the matter: that was just it. There was 
no matter in the sermon at all. It was a perfect 
phenomenon, it was so emi^ty.” 

“ Then it illustrated Bishop Berkeley’s theory 
of the world, — not substantial, only phenome- 
nal,” said young George Classic, who was 
spending his college vacation among us. No 
one seemed to notice his remark, however. 

“ I should not mind much the sermon’s being 
emjity,” said Dr. Hunter : “ if that were all, I 
could go to sleep. But the minister puts such 
odd things into it, which have nothing to do 
with his subject. He tells us the stories we 
have just been reading in the newspapers.” 

“And tells them as if he had half forgotten 
them,” added another. 

“He seems half asleep all the time,” contin- 
ued Dr. Hunter. “ Then he must needs be al- 
ways talking about slavery, — a thing we have 
nothing to do with. I have no doubt Squire 
Merrimac, who owns so much factory stock, and 
whose son is married in Georgia to a planter’s 
daughter, will leave the society before long.” 

“My friends,” said a quiet voice from behind 
me, “ it is our fault that our minister does not 


THE WAY WE HELPED OUE MIXISTEE 9 

write good sermons. We do not help him write 
good sermons. We do not help him write them, 
as we ought.” 

I looked around, and saw Deacon Herbert. 
The deacon was a man whom everybody loved 
and respected. They loved him for his familiar, 
affectionate interest in the whole community, 
and for his perpetual usefulness. He was al- 
ways doing some good thing, and inducing 
others to join him in his good enterprises. He 
was respected for his keen sagacity and sterling 
sense. He was apt to put things in rather a 
paradoxical way, and no one always knew at 
first whether he were speaking seriously or iron- 
ically. But this drew attention; and he was 
sure to show before he had done speaking that 
there was a button of gold deposited by his 
analysis at the bottom of the crucible. So we 
all turned round to hear the deacon. 

“ How can we help him write good sermons. 
Deacon?” said Townsend. 

“Not the way you are doing now. This talk 
of yours will make them five per cent, worse. 
The next time you go to church you will all feel 
bound, for the sake of consistency, to find fault 
with something; and so the sermon will seem 


lO 


DEACON Herbert’s bible-class 


worse than ever. And it will be worse, too; 
for he wilhfeel your want of sympathy, and that 
will freeze his thoughts. 'No: if we want good 
sermons, we must help write them ourselves.” 

“ I thought it the minister’s duty to write the 
sermon, not ours,” said Townsend. 

‘‘ So it is your business to argue in court for 
your clients. But suppose they should not care 
a copper whether you won their case or not, and 
should not furnish you with the facts, and 
should sometimes give you wrong information 
on the subject. Suppose the jury should yawn 
and go to sleep during your argument, and the 
judge read the newspaper. What sort of an 
argument would you make then ? ” 

“ But we pay our minister a good salary, and 
he has nothing to do but to write sermons, and 
ought to write interesting ones,” said Dr. 
Hunter. 

“ The citizens of this town might pay you five 
thousand dollars a year to attend them when 
sick,” returned Herbert; “but, if they would 
not tell your their symptoms, nor take your 
medicine, would the five thousand dollars help 
you cure them ? ” 

“But still,” said Townsend, “I do .not see 


THE WAY WE HELPED OUR MINISTER I I 

how we can help the minister write any better. 
If a man has no talent, we can’t give it to him.’^ 
“ I would take,” said the deacon, “ the worst 
candidate who ev’^er came from Andover or 
Cambridge, and, provided he wished to be use- 
ful, I would agree he should become so, with 
such a society as I can conceive of to help him 
preach. But our minister is not the worst, even 
in our neighborhood. He is not wanting in 
talent, and you all admit that he is a well- 
informed, kind-hearted, and industrious man. 
Better still, he is a man of real piety. On the 
other hand, we are not such a society as I could 
imagine ; but, such as we are, if we do our duty,. 
I will engage that within a year he shall preach 
good sermons, that will satisfy you all. Will 
you try the experiment ? ” 

“ Decidedly we will,” said Dr. Hunter. “ And 
we will give our minister not one, but three 
years in which to improve himself. He was 
three years at the theological school: he may 
study now three years more with his parish.” 

“Good!” said the deacon. “What are the 
faults you find with him?” 

“First,” answered Townsend, “his sermons 
have nothing in them.” 


12 DEACON HERBEEt’s BIBLE-CLASS 

“ Secondly,” said the doctor, “ his delivery 
has no animation ; thirdly, he fills them with 
stories which have nothing to do with his sub- 
ject ; and, finally, he keeps up a constant talk- 
ing about slavery and politics, and such mat- 
ters.” 

“Very well,” returned the deacon : “ all these 
faults grow out of the first, and that is your 
fault as well as his. He will never have any- 
thing interesting to say to you until you let him 
know your spiritual needs, and make him your 
confidant, and so furnish him every week with 
facts and subjects of living interest on which to 
exercise his mind. If he has nothing interesting 
to say, his delivery will inevitably be inanimate. 
If you do not furnish him with illustrations 
from your own lives, his illustrations will be far- 
fetched, and he will take his subjects from poli- 
tics or from anything else that really interests 
him.” 

“ Still,” said the doctor, “ I do not see what 
we are to do. You are not going to tell him, I 
suppose, that we propose to interfere in his ser- 
mon-writing.” 

“Why not?” said the deacon. “I do not 
read Goethe, but I have seen one line quoted 


THE AVAY WE HELPED OUK MINISTER 1 3 

from him which I should like to have engraved 
in gold letters upon every pulpit in the land, — 

‘Between us, at least, let there be truth.’ * 

If there cannot be truth between a minister and 
his people, where can it exist? If the people 
have not enough confidence in the humility and 
devotion of their minister to tell him what they 
think would improve his public services, the re- 
lation between them is a failure. No : I shall 
go to our minister and tell him of this conver- 
sation, and propose to him to meet his people 
every week on Monday evening, and have free 
and familiar conversation on a series of subjects 
of practical Christianity. I shall tell him that 
we wish him to know what our doubts, obscuri- 
ties, and troubles are in reference to these mat- 
ters, before he preaches upon them. I shall tell 
him that we think this will make his services 
more directly useful to us all. I have no doubt 
he will gladly assent to it ; for, whatever your 
opinion may be, I think him a man who really 
wishes to do us all the good he can.” 

“ So do I,” said Townsend. “ But you need 
not tell him what we have been saying about his 
sermons.” 

*“ Zwischen uns, sey Wahrheit.” — Tphigenia. 


14 DEACON Herbert’s bible-class 

“ Ah, Brother Townsend,” replied the deacon, 
shaking his finger at the lawyer, “before you 
speak again in a public place of a good man’s 
follies or faults, ask yourself whether you would 
be willing to repeat to his face what you say be- 
hind his back.” 

Our minister entered warmly into the plan; 
and it is extraordinary how well it succeeded. 
To be sure, we had some difficulty in persuad- 
ing many persons to express themselves at these 
social discussions; but the deacon made every- 
thing easy by his familiar way. Instead of hav- 
ing the subject opened in a formal manner, we 
found ourselves talking about it before we knew 
the discussion had begun. Even the women 
would sometimes become so much interested 
that they would begin to speak, and speak re- 
markably well, when they had only intended to 
ask a single question. Sometimes the conversa- 
tion was very tender, and some deep experiences 
would be artlessly expressed by one and an- 
other. Next Sunday we were sure to have 
* something in the sermon applicable to what had 
been said, and all were more ready to attend to 
it on account of the previous conversation. Our 
minister now was never at a loss for subjects; 


THE WAY WE HELPED OUE MINISTEE 1 5 

and he was obliged to put off for eight months, 
and finally to postpone entirely, a sermon he had 
half written on the “Moral Influence of Steam- 
ships.” His subjects were usually “Provi- 
dence,” “Prayer,” “Repentance toward God,” 
“Faith in Jesus Christ,” “The New Birth,” 
“Family Devotion,” “Honesty in Business,” 
“Family Duties,” and the like. The sermons 
were not only more interesting on account of 
the previous meetings, but the meetings were 
more, interesting because of the sermon which 
we knew was to follow. 

Our minister once told me that, on Tuesday 
morning, he was always seated at his desk by 
candle-light ; and that by Tuesday noon the 
greater part of his sermon was written for the 
next Sunday. “ But,” added he, “ I study 
harder than ever. So many questions are 
started in my mind by our Monday evening 
conversation that I am searching in all my 
books for light concerning them till the end of 
the week. Moreover,” said he, “my pastoral 
visiting is much easier, for I always have some- 
thing to talk about. Formerly, I would some- 
times visit my parishioners and spend a quarter 
of an hour in talking of the weather, crops, etc. 


1 6 DEACOx Herbert’s bible-class 

Now I always find them with something in their 
mind which they wish to say to me, but had 
no opportunity of saying on Monday evening. 
They attend to my sermons a great deal better 
than they did before, and our church is increas- 
ing both in numbers and in a good religious 
spirit.” 

This was the way we helped our minister to 
write good sermons. And, for my own part, I 
heartily wish we had a Deacon Herbert in every 
church in the land. ■ 


II. 


AIM OF LIFE. 

I BELIEVE I have told you nothing as yet. 
about Deacon Herbert’s Bible-class. It meets 
at his house every week, and last evening I was 
present. His plan, I found, was to take some 
interesting passage of the Hew Testament, and 
make it the subject of conversation. When I 
entered, the deacon was reading this text, “ To 
this end was I born, and for this cause came I 
into the world, that I should bear witness to the 
truth.” I supposed the subject would be the 
purpose of Christ’s coming. But I was mis- 
taken. 

The deacon opened the conversation as 
follows : “ Our Master tells us in this text why 
he came into the world. It was ‘to bear wit- 
ness to the truth,’ not to teach it merely, but to 
bear witness to it. We read elsewhere that he 
‘went about doing good,’ but that was not the 
object of his coming. It was a particular kind 
of good which he came to do, by means of truth. 
Again, we read that •‘ he died for our sins ’ ; but 
that was not the object of his coming. And, 


l8 DEACON IIERBEET’s BIBLE-CLASS 

again, we read that he ‘ became perfect ’ through 
the sufferings he endured. But he did n 3t come 
in order to become perfect. All these were 
secondary objects, — means to a higher end. 
The great end of his life, which he kept before 
his mind always, was ‘to bear witness :,o the 
truth.’ I believe the Greek word means to be a 
martyr to the truth. We now know what was 
Christ’s object in the world. It was to give his 
testimony, by action and suffering, life and 
death, by doing good and bearing evil, by his 
Sermon on the Mount and his words on the 
■cross, by his authority over nature, and his ten- 
derness toward man, — by all this, I say, to give 
his testimony to the truths"* 

“Now, I have another question to ask. 
What is the object of our lives? We know 
what Christ came to do. What did we come to 
do? We know what his mission was. What is 
ours? or have we any mission? Ought we to 
have any object for which to live?” Here the 
deacon stopped. 

There was a silence. At last. Farmer Hay- 
stack said : “ I learned in my catechism, when I 
was a boy, that the chief end of man was to 
glorify God, and enjoy him forever. That was 


1 


AIM OF LIFE 


19 


the object then. But our new catechisms say 
nothing about the chief end of man. And I 
don’t know what is the object now.” 

“All the worse for us,” replied the deacon, 
“ if our catechisms say nothing on this subject. 
Your answer, Farmer, is perhaps the right one ; 
but it is a little obscure and a little indefinite. 
What is meant by glorifying God, and how do 
we glorify him ? ” 

“ ‘ Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear 
much fruit ; so shall ye be my disciples.’ ” This 
answer came from the Widow Perkins, a good 
lady, who was “ mighty in the Scriptures.” 
And we all smiled, for it seemed quite apposite. 

“ Or, in other words,” said young Townsend, 
our good-natured lawyer, “ the chief end of man 
is to do his duties.” 

“ This, too, is good, but still, as I think, in- 
definite,” replied the deacon. “ I am asking 
what is the great duty of life, and you tell me 
it is to do my duty. But what is my duty? 
This is what I wish to know. Is there any 
great idea of duty to which I can devote myself, 
which shall include all other duties? Is there 
any chief end to which all others shall be sub- 
ordinate? Is there any course of conduct to 


20 


DEACON Herbert’s bible-class 


which all actions shall be ancillary ? In short, 
ought I, like Jesus, to have a great object al- 
ways before me, which shall be infinite and ex- 
tending beyond time ? Or ought I, like the 
mass of men, who live without an object, to live, 
as it were, from hand to mouth? Or ought I, 
like many others, to have an object in life, but 
one only temporal ^ — as to become rich, learned, 
famous, infiuential ? ” 

“ Explain yourself more fully,” said Dr. Hun- 
ter, who had been listening diligently. “I do 
not think we quite understand you.” 

“Well, then,” said the deacon, “I will try to 
explain my meaning further. The great misery 
of life, I have observed, is to be without an ob- 
ject. The great happiness of life is to have a 
great and worthy object to which to devote 
one’s self. Now, the mass of men, high or low, 
have no such object. They have a routine of 
work or a routine of pleasure, neither of which 
leads to anything. They have no sense of prog- 
ress or accomplishment. So long, however, as 
they have work enough to do, — as by God’s 
good providence most of us have, — they can be 
contented and even cheerful, though not satis- 
fied. For content is not satisfaction; and at 


AIM OF LIFE 


21 


the bottom of the heart there is a want of satis- 
faction, so long as we are making no real prog- 
ress. Something more like satisfaction comes 
to those who have an object which covers the 
whole or the greater part of the present life. 
The scholar, whose object is knowledge, the 
artist, following the ideal of beauty continually, 
the ambitious man, climbing higher every day, — 
these have a sense of progress. But the object 
for which they live is, after all, a worldly one ; 
and, for real satisfaction, we need something as 
infinite as the capacity of our heart, which is 
like that of the sea, into which ‘ all rivers run, 
but it is not full.’ Do you understand me 
now ? ” 

“ I think so,” replied the doctor. “ When I 
have been making visits to my patients all day, 
I feel better contented than if I had been idle. 
But this mere routine of duty does not satisfy 
me, unless my motive and aim in all these visits 
has been a high one. It is not merely doing a 
right action, but doing it with a right intention, 
that satisfies us.” 

“Very well,” said the deacon: “what, then, 
is the right motive, from which all our actions 
should proceed ? ” 


2 2 DEACON HERBERT’S BIBLE-CLASS 

“ I think,” returned the doctor, “ that our ob- 
ject in life should be to do good^ to make our- 
selves as useful as possible, to do the greatest 
good to the greatest number. I think that this 
must be the Christian object, because Christian- 
ity is essentially love. When, therefore, I go 
out in the morning to visit my patients, instead 
of trying to get as many fees as I can, I try to 
give the most of my time and my thought where 
I can be the most useful.” 

“Very well,” said the deacon: “here is one 
answer to my question. Has any one any ob- 
jection to make to it?” 

After a few minutes’ reflection, I spoke my- 
self, and said : “ I should be sorry even to seem 
to object to such a course of life as our good 
doctor proposes. And yet, as an answer to the 
question, his statement does not seem quite ade- 
quate. At least, such an aim in life would not, 
I think, suit or satisfy me. I think I could do 
more good by making it my aim to become good. 
If I am good myself, I shall be sure to do good 
to others. I should place the aim of life, there- 
fore, not in benevolence, but in self-culture. 
For it is evident that of two persons, each try- 
ing to do all the good he can, the one whose 


ATM OF LIFE 


23 


powers of mind and heart are most developed, 
whose habits are most wisely regulated, who has 
the greatest knowledge of men and things, will 
be the most useful. If I desire to do good, then, 
I can best attain that object by proposing to 
myself a higher one, — personal improvement. 
My objection to 'benevolence as the aim of life is 
that it would lead, I fear, to shallowness^ 
“And my objection to self-culture as the aim 
of life,” said the doctor, “ is that it would lead 
to selfishness. I think I have known those who 
proposed to themselves, as their aim, this self- 
development ; and the result has been that they 
became absorbed in self. If my highest aim is 
self-culture, then I must sacrifice to it my neigh- 
bor’s interest, where the two seem to be op- 
posed. For instance, I am following out some 
important train of thought — I am pursuing 
some valuable study — and I am called upon to 
take this time to visit the sick or to relieve the 
poor. If my highest aim is self-culture, I shall 
continue my studies, and let the poor take care 
of themselves. Perhaps I ought to do so in 
some particular case. But, if this is the rule of 
my life., it will necessarily produce selfishness.” 

“But,” said I, “has not Jesus taught, in the 


24 


DEACON Herbert’s bible-class 


parable of the ten pounds, that we shall be re- 
warded or punished according as we improve 
our powers and faculties, or neglect to improve 
them ? ” 

“Has not Jesus taught,” replied the doctor, 
“in the twenty-fifth chapter of Matthew, that 
we shall be rewarded or punished at the last day 
according as we have/ec? the hungry^ clothed the 
naked^ visited the sick, etc., that is, according as 
we have made it our aim to do good ? ” 

“I remember,” I answered, “a friend of mine 
whose rule of life was general usefulness. He 
never considered his own needs, either outward 
or inward. He would always give up an oppor- 
tunity of self-improvement, no matter how im- 
portant it might be, to be of use in any way to 
any one who asked his aid. The consequence 
was that in this way his mind became empty, 
his character lost its depth. He had given him- 
self all away, and had taken no time to renew 
his powers, refresh his energies, to gain new 
strength or new insight. He at last perceived 
the mistake himself, and said, ‘I shall change 
my course, and take a part of my time hence- 
forth for my own improvement ; for I see that I 
cannot give to others except I have something 
in myself to give.’ ” 


AIM OF LIFE 


25 


“Your story,” said the doctor, “is a good 
one ; but I can match it. I also had a friend 
who made self-culture his rule. The greatest 
part of his time he devoted to solitary study and 
reflection. He sought to develop his mind and 
character by all the means in his power ; but he 
did not seem to feel that any one had claims 
upon him. His mother and sisters were poor, 
and supported themselves by hard work : he did 
nothing for their aid, comfort, or enjoyment. 
At last he married, — when he thought that 
marriage was necessary for his own culture. 
Still pursuing the same great idea, he left his 
wife and children, and took the means which 
should have been used for their support to en- 
able himself to travel abroad ; for he thought it 
necessary for his culture to see the Pyramids 
and the Vatican. In short, he became a con- 
ceited egotist with his ‘ self-culture.’ I confess 
this instance has made me sick of the very 
word.” 

I was silent, for I thought we had had our 
share of the conversation ; and besides, to tell 
the truth, I did not know exactly what to reply. 
So Deacon Herbert spoke: “As far as I can 
see,” said he, “ you have confuted each other ; 


26 DEACON Herbert’s bible-class 

and I suppose you must both be wrong. The 
schoolmaster has shown that, if we make doing 
good the aim of life, it will lead to shallowness ; 
and the doctor has shown that, if we make self- 
culture the aim of life, it will lead to selfishness. 
There must then be some other answer to our 
question. Can any one give it ? ” 

HereujDon good Mr. Warland, the Sunday- 
school superintendent, spoke for the first time. 
He was a very modest man, — modest even to 
diffidence. He seemed to be afraid of the sound 
of his own voice ; and I have known him to sit 
a whole evening in his own parlor, with one or 
two friends whom he had invited to come in, 
and not utter a sentence the whole time. The 
wonder, therefore, was how he ever came to be 
superintendent of the Sunday-school ; for in that 
capacity he frequently had to address the chil- 
dren and teachers. The explanation was to be 
found in his jffirenological development and in 
his Christian experience. A large organ of cau- 
tiousness and a small organ of self-esteem, with 
a great deal of reverence and conscientiousness, 
made him diffident. But he had a large devel- 
opment of the love of children ; and this, with 
his reverence and conscientiousness, made him 


AIM OF LIFE 


27 


take i)leasure in the Sunday-school. Then he 
was a genuine Christian, and had a constant de- 
sire in his heart to promote the cause of Christ 
and to do the will of God. In the power of 
faith and prayer, therefore, he could speak in the 
Sunday-school when he was silent at his own 
dinner-table. He could speak courageously 
if duty commanded, where men braver by nat- 
ure than he would have shrunk back. So Mr. 
Warland broke the silence. 

“ I have often heard it said by ministers in 
their sermons that we ought to make it our 
great object to save our souls. What do you 
think of that answer. Deacon Herbert?” 

“What do you think of it yourself, Mr. War- 
land?” said the Deacon. “My business is to 
ask questions, not answer them. The presiding 
officer of a meeting, even though he be called 
the ‘speaker,’ is not to speak himself, but to 
hear others speak. So, Mr. Warland, what do 
you think of that answer yourself?” 

A quiet smile rested for a moment on Mr. 
Warland’s lips before he rejoined, “ I think that 
to make it our chief aim to save our own soul is 
the same thing in another form as self-improve- 
ment or self-culture, and, like these, may lead to 
selfishness.” 


28 DEACON Herbert’s bible-class 

“How so?” said Farmer Haystack. “Is it 
wrong to labor for the salvation of our own 
souls ? ” 

“ Certainly not,” said Deacon Herbert ; “ and 
yet it seems to me that a man who is making 
this his highest aim is not yet a Christian. He 
may be on his way to Christianity, but he is not 
a Christian yet. The Christian has no more 
anxiety about the salvation, of his soul than he 
has about the events of his earthly life. He 
trusts both to God. He expects to be saved by 
God, and not to save himself. It is too great a 
work for him to do. If it is done at all, it must 
be done by the power of God ; and, as regards 
his own salvation, his duty is mainly faith. I 
do not find that it was the object of the apostles 
to save their own souls. It seems to me that 
their object was to save the world, not them- 
selves.” 

“Yes,” said the doctor. “Whenever the 
Christian Church has taught that the great ob- 
ject of Christians is to save their own souls, it 
has resulted in a kind of religious selfishness. 
Thus, in the first centuries of the Church, thou- 
sands of Christians turned anchorites, and lived 
in cells, in order to save their souls by self-denial 


AIM OF LIFE 


29 


and prayer. But they left their duties to their 
fellow-men unfulfilled. So in the Middle Ages 
they went into monasteries and nunneries to 
save their souls and the effective force of Chris- 
tendom, which should have been employed in 
civilizing society, was consumed in the seclusion 
of the convent. So now the members of most 
of our churches seem to think that church and 
church meetings are places where they go to se- 
cure their own salvation, and not to consult or 
labor together for the salvation of society. I 
saw a statement in a newspaper, the other day, # 
that the churches of a certain city collected an- 
nually for religious purposes the sum of $250,- 
000, and that the city did not contain a single 
hospital to which a sick man without means 
could be carried.” 

There was present an intelligent young lady, 
by name Alice Alton, a member of the Bible- 
class, who said: “Perhaps, then, the object of 
life should be to do the nearest duty. What is 
the objection to this rule? To do always what 
is nearest to us, taking into view our own ca- 
pacities and needs, as well as the necessities of 
those around us. This would save us, perhaps, 
from the two dangers of selfishness and shallow- 
ness.” 


30 DEACON IIEKBERt’s BIBLE-CLASS 

“But not, I am afraid,” returned Deacon Her- 
bert, “from that of narrowness. The rule, I 
know, has much to recommend it, and as a sub- 
ordinate rule of conduct may be very useful. It 
is well, certainly, that the commonest cases of 
every-day life should be sanctified by the great 
idea of duty. It is a great thing to be able to 
say of any one what Dr. Johnson said of his 
friend Levet : — 

‘ His virtues walked their narrow round, 

Nor made a pause, nor left a void ; 

And sure the Eternal Master found 
His single talent well employed.’ 

Yet I have known very good people, and people 
of culture and education, whose minds might 
have done good in a large circle, who became 
very narrow by adopting as their rule of life 
this idea of the nearest duty. With this rule, 
you never go out to look for work : you must 
always wait till it comes to you. With this 
rule, fireside cares, a few friends, one’s own asso- 
ciates in business, one’s own religious sect, 
absorb all one’s thoughts and interests. The 
interests of society, of humanity, of the uni- 
versal Church, of the age, are indifferent to us. 
We do not care for the cause of truth, peace. 


AIM OF LIFE 


31 


freedom, human virtue, human happiness. The 
sufferings of the slave, the prisoner, the insane, 
the ignorant, are not in the sphere of our near- 
est duties, and they touch us not. I have seen 
people of the highest refinement and purest 
virtues, ornaments of their own homes, who 
cared for nothing beyond them, and who might 
have learned a lesson from the poor negro wash- 
erwoman whose heart was interested in the mis- 
sions of her church to India and Burmah, and 
who sheltered under her roof, at the risk of ruin 
to herself, the fugitive slave flying from oppres- 
sion.” 

“ I think you are right,” said Miss Alton : “ I 
have noticed the same thing. It would seem, 
then, that each of these answers is partial and 
incomplete, and that we need a rule which shall 
include them all. I suppose each of the rules 
thus far given is good as far as it goes. Each 
gives one side of the subject. We w'ant some 
rule which shall give us all sides. We need an 
idea of life which shall make us actively useful to 
others, which shall lead us constantly to improve 
ourselves, which shall insure the salvation of 
the soul, which shall make us faithful to the 
nearest duty, yet enlarge our heart till it sympa- 


32 DEACON Herbert’s bible-class 

lliizes with the interests of our whole race. We 
need an idea which shall not tend to shallowness, 
to selfishness, or to narrowness. But is there 
any rule so comprehensive, and at the same 
time practical and capable of being applied to 
the details of every-day life ? ” 

“I think there is,” said Deacon Herbert. 
“You have stated well, it appears to me, what 
we need. We need an object for our life which 
shall give us continual motive, which shall take 
us out of ourselves, which shall give concentra- 
tion and unity to all our efforts, making our life 
throughout of one piece ” — 

George Classic (aside). — “Like that of Hor- 
ace’s good man, — ‘ totus^ teres^ atque rotundus^ ” 
Deacon Herbert. — “ Thus giving us the glad 
feeling of constant progress, of steady accom- 
plishment. Where are we to look for such an 
aim except in the life of Jesus himself, and in 
that of his ajDOStles ? What was their aim ? ” 
“To bear witness to the truth,” said the 
doctor. “But what truth? Is it any and all 
truth?” 

“ To the truth which should establish the 
kingdom of heaven,” said Mr. Warland. “I 
think I see it now. It is evident that Christians 


AIM OF LIFE 


33 


are to make it their aim to cause God’s kingdom 
to come, and his will to be done on earth as it is 
done in heaven. ‘Thy kingdom come’ is the 
central petition of the Christian’s daily prayer, 
and should be the main desire of his heart. To 
work for this coming of God’s kingdom may 
perhaps satisfy all the conditions we have affixed 
to the aim of life. W e are to advance the king- 
dom of God by bearing witness to its truth in 
word, action, and life. The end is a generous 
one. It is to do the highest good to others; 
and, in doing them the highest good, we must 
also do them all lower good, — as Jesus healed 
men’s bodies that he might heal their souls, too. 
But to do this work requires constant self- cult- 
ure, also. For we are to bear witness to the 
truth, and therefore must know it. We are to 
bear witness in life, and therefore must make 
our life noble. This aim avoids narrowness ; for 
Christ’s work was to save all mankind, and so 
we must take an interest in the whole human 
race.” 

Mr. Warland stopped, astonished at himself 
for having said so much. The deacon smiled, 
and said : — 

“Not another word to-night. Mr. Warland 


34 DEACON Herbert’s bible-class 

has expressed my thought exactly. We will 
take up the subject here where he leaves it at 
our next meeting. And now let us close our 
meeting with this hymn from Mr. Longfellow’s 
‘ Book of Hymns ’ : — 

“ * Almighty Father ! thou hast many a blessing 
In store for every erring child of thine : 

For this I pray, — let me, thy grace possessing. 

Seek to be guided by thy will divine. 

“ ‘ Not for earth’s treasures, for her joys the dearest. 
Would I my supplications raise to thee ; 

Not for the hopes that to my heart are nearest. 

But only that I give that heart to thee. 

“ ‘ I pray that thou wouldst guide and guard me ever ; 
Cleanse by thy power from every stain of sin. 

I will thy blessing ask on each endeavor. 

And thus thy promised peace my soul shall win.’” 


III. 

AIM OF LIFE {continued). 

The next week after the conversation last re- 
corded, I was careful to be present at the Bible- 
class, and found the usual members assembled. 
Our minister also was present this evening. 
When the time for beginning our exercises had 
arrived, Deacon Herbert opened the meeting 
with a prayer : — 

“ O Thou who art Light, and in whom is no 
darkness at all, — in our minds the light shines 
in darkness. Therefore, we have met together, 
not now for social amusement, or to pass an idle 
hour ; not to whet our faculties and sharpen our 
wits by controversy ; not to dispute ; but to in- 
quire, humbly, of each other and of thee. We 
know and are sure that we shall obtain what we 
ask, and find what we seek, if we can be sincere, 
true, single-minded, and truth-lovers while to- 
gether. Make us so, O our Father; and then 
give us such insights and convictions as shall fit 
us for daily duty and daily trial, fit us to resist 
temptation and submit to thy will, — which we 
would ask of thee, the Father, through Christ 
thy Son, and in the Holy Spirit. Amen.” 


36 DEACON HERBEET’s BIBLE-CLASS 

“We concluded,” said Deacon Herbert, “at 
our last meeting, that the aim of the Christian’s 
life should be to labor with Christ in causing 
God’s kingdom to come. This evening, we will 
try to find out what this kingdom of God is, 
what we can do to make it come, and why this 
aim is better than any other.” 

“ I wish to inquire,” said the doctor, “ what is 
the precise meaning of this phrase — ‘ kingdom 
of Ood^ or ‘ kingdom of heaven ’ — which we so 
often meet in the 'New Testament. For ex- 
ample, at the very beginning of the Sermon on 
the Mount : ‘ Blessed are the poor in spirit, for 
theirs is the kingdom of heaven? Does it mean 
that they shall enter heaven after this life, or 
that they shall enter the earthly kingdom of the 
Messiah ? It seems to me that our notions are 
rather vague on this subject.” 

“It is evident,” said Townsend, “that the 
phrase ‘kingdom of heaven’ was understood 
among the Jews to mean the earthly reign of 
the Messiah, and that Jesus used the term in the 
same sense. John the Baptist preached, ‘Re- 
pent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ 
(Matthew iii. 2.) lie must have understood by 
it the coming of the Messiah to reign. But, as 


AIM OF LIFE 


37 


soon as Jesus began to preach, he used the same 
language (Matthew iv. 17), saying, ‘Repent, for 
the kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ In the thir- 
teenth chajDter of Matthew are seven parables 
uttered by Jesus concerning the kingdom of 
heaven, all of which may, and some of which 
must, refer to the earthly reign of Christ. In 
the parable of the sower, he describes his coming, 
and how he would be received by some and re- 
jected by others. In that of the wheat and 
tares, he teaches that, of those who receive him 
and enter his outward kingdom as subjects, 
some are worthy, and some unworthy, which 
cannot apply to heaven hereafter. The parable 
of the grain of mustard seed teaches the out- 
ward extension of the kingdom of heaven, as an 
institution. The fourth parable, of the leaven, 
teaches the inward extension of the kingdom of 
heaven, as an influence. The fifth parable, of 
the hidden treasure, describes the inward unseen 
blessings which a subject of this kingdom has in 
his soul. The sixth parable, concerning the 
pearl of price, describes the outward and appar- 
ent blessings of the kingdom. And the seventh 
parable, of the net, shows that this kingdom is 
an earthly one : its subjects are both good and 


38 DEACON Herbert’s bible-class 

bad men, who remain in it together here, but 
will hereafter be separated. And all taken to- 
gether plainly show that Jesus means by the 
kingdom of heaven his earthly reign as Messiah, 
which no doubt was to' bring spiritual as well as 
temporal blessings to his subjects.” 

The doctor spoke next. “ Friend Townsend,” 
said he, “seems to think that by this phrase 
‘kingdom of heaven’ both the Jew’s and Jesus 
himself understood the temporal reign of the 
Messiah over the Jewish people, in which they 
were to be made inwardly righteous and out- 
wardly independent and prosperous. The Jews 
may have had this view ; but Jesus himself must 
have risen far above it, and must have regarded 
his office and kingdom as an inward and moral 
one, for he tells Pilate that his kingdom is not 
of this world, but that he is king of the truth. 
He says his kingdom comes without being ob- 
served, and that men cannot point it out ; for it 
is within them, or in the midst of them. He 
tells Nicodemus that a man must be born of the 
Spirit and of water, in order to enter his king- 
dom ; and Paul says that the kingdom of God is 
not meat nor drink, but righteousness, peace, and 
joy in the Holy Ghost.” 


AIM OF LIFE 


39 


The minister then spoke, and said; “The 
kingdom of heaven may he both what Brother 
Townsend and the doctor have said. It may be 
an outward visible kingdom and an inward 
moral kingdom. But the outward kingdom 
which Christ established was not the Jewish 
theocracy, but the Christian Church. I under- 
stand by the kingdom of heaven the universal 
Church, — the great company of believers who 
unite togetner in the worship and service of God 
and Christ. To this Church all the parables re- 
ferred to by Brother Townsend apply well. It 
is both leaven and mustard seed. It is a great 
outward institution, and it is a great influence 
to civilize the world and reflne society. Christ 
reigns in it as king of truth, and by no other 
force than a moral force. The object of the 
kingdom is to produce righteousness, jDeace, 
and holy joy. Why does not the Christian 
Church, then, as a great institution, with a visi- 
ble form, but an invisible moral influence, fully 
meet all the passages which speak of the king- 
dom of heaven?” 

“I have thought,” said the Widow Perkins, 
“that heaven was hereafter, and not here; for 
we read that ‘many shall come from the east 


40 


DEACON Herbert’s bible-class 


and west, and shall sit down with Abraham and 
Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven’; 
also, that ‘flesh and blood cannot inherit the 
kingdom of God.’ And Christ says that his 
disciples ‘ shall eat and drink at his table in his 
kingdom.’ And at the last supper he speaks 
of the time when he shall drink the fruit of 
the vine with them new in the kingdom of his 
Father, and when he shall say to the good, ‘In- 
herit the kingdom prepared for you from the 
foundation of the world.’” 

“It seems to me,” said Mr. Warland, “that 
Christ’s kingdom begins here and continues 
hereafter. He reigns in this world and also in 
the other. The idea of the kingdom of heaven 
enlarges as we look at it. And so it has en- 
larged in the conception of mankind. It was 
first the notion of a Jewish Messiah, reigning 
over the Jewish people. Then it was the no- 
tion of the Son of man as a great moral teacher, 
reigning over the minds and hearts of those who 
became his disciples, both Jew and Gentile. 
Then it was the idea of the Son of God, divinely 
sent to found a great Church, which should 
unite men in love with God and with each other 
through all time, and having Jesus always as its 


AIM OF LIFE 


41 


living head. And, again, we see that this 
Church extends beyond this world into the 
next; beyond time, into eternity; that the 
saints below make one communion with the 
saints above; and that deaths in the Christian 
view, ceases to be anything but a mere line 
separating the two worlds.” 

“ But,” said Deacon Herbert, “ have we even 
yet taken, in the whole idea? The kingdom of 
heaven is, first, the reign of the Jewish Messiah ; 
next, the reign of Jesus as a moral teacher over 
the minds and hearts of men ; next, his reign in 
the Church as Son of God ; next, his reign over 
the redeemed Church above. But, besides this, 
there is the reign of Jesus in the world, — his 
influence to purify society and to redeem the 
race from its outward ignorance and vice. All 
these ideas are included in the term ‘kingdom 
of heaven’; and when we say. Thy kingdom 
come, we pray for the extension of Christ’s 
power outwardly and inwardly, here and here- 
after, in the Church and in the world, and the 
aim of a Christian should be to cause, according 
to his ability, that Christ shall thus reign over 
human consciences, human minds, human hearts, 
and human lives.” 


42 DEACON HEKBEEt’s BIBLE-CLASS 

“ This is a very large idea,” said the doctor. 

“ And, therefore, one which is very apt to be 
misunderstood,” replied the deacon. “ It is not 
only large, but it is central. It is in the centre 
of our daily prayer, and should be in the centre 
of our daily life. It was in the beginning the 
radical idea of Christianity,, out of which every 
thing proceeded. The apostles announced to 
Jew and Gentile that Jesus was the Christ; that 
is, the Messiah who came to establish the king- 
dom of heaven. Those who believed that he 
was the Christ were immediately to enter his 
kingdom and to become his subjects. This was 
expressed by baptism. As the subjects of his 
kingdom, they were to labor with him to extend 
it over the minds and hearts of men, to cause 
the Christ to reign over others, and over their 
own souls. While doing this, they were safe. 
They knew their salvation was secure while they 
continued the subjects of Christ’s kingdom.” 

“ That may have been the original idea,” said 
the doctor ; “ but ought it to be the idea at the 
present time ? Christianity at first had a great 
war to wage against unbelief and opposition. 
It was a kingdom of light seeking to establish it- 
self in a world of darkness. It was surrounded 


AIM OF LIFE 


43 


by opposing religions. Therefore, it was the first 
business of every Christian to cause his Master 
to be known, believed in, and obeyed. But the 
case is different now, at least with us. Almost 
every one in our community believes in Christ 
already; and, unless we turn missionaries and 
go to India, we cannot do the same thing which 
was the first duty of the early Christians.” 

“You have now expressed,” said the deacon, 
“what I think a very common error. You say 
that our community already believes in Christ. 
In what way do they believe in him? I think 
usually as an historic Christ, who lived, taught, 
and died a long time ago for the salvation of the 
world, and then ascended into heaven, where he 
remains, ready to receive his friends when they 
die. But the idea of Jesus as our living King, 
present in the world to-day, carrying on a great 
warfare now in society against darkness and sin, 
at work in the world all around us, the leader 
of all moral movements, the centre of all moral 
influences, the fountain of life, perpetually 
welling out pure waters of safety and comfort, — 
this idea, I think, is entertained by very few.” 

“But is it a true idea?” said the doctor. 
“Have we any reason to believe that Jesus is 


44 


DEACON HERBEET’s BIBLE-CLASS 


thus personally and actively present in the 
world?” 

“ He says, ‘ Lo ! I am with you always, even 
to the end of the world.’ He says, ‘ Where two 
or three are gathered together in my name, 
there am I in the midst of them.’ He said to 
his disciples, ‘I go away and come to you.’ 
The early Church, especially the Apostolic 
Church, fully believed that their Master was 
with them. If w^e do not believe it now, we 
have a different religion from theirs, in a most 
essential point. The promise which Jesus con- 
tinually repeated was that he would come and 
dwell with those who kept his sayings. For my 
OAvn part, I do not believe in any Christianity 
a23art from Christ.” 

“What you say,” remarked the minister, 
“affords the best exi3lanation of those obscure 
passages in which Jesus says that his discijdes 
must eat his flesh and drink his blood ; also, of 
those other passages where, in promising the 
Comforter, — the Holy Spirit, — he seems to 
speak of his own inward coming. This also ex- 
plains two phenomena in ecclesiastical history : 
first, the power of the Roman Catholic doctrine 
of tr an substantiation ; and, second, the belief in 


AIM OF LIFE 


45 


the second coming of Christ, which is constantly 
springing up anew in the Church. The sacrifice 
of the mass seems to keep Christ personally 
present with believers. And the doctrine of the 
second coming is the expectation of such a per- 
sonal presence hereafter to take place. The 
error in both cases has been the substitution of 
a visible and outward presence for an invisible 
and inward one, — a local and temporary pres- 
ence for a universal and constant presence. 
Thus far, men have only been able to believe in 
a personal and real presence of Christ, by believ- 
ing in a sensible and outward presence of Christ, 
When we have sufficient faith in the reality of 
spiritual things to believe Christ really and per- 
sonally present when he is spiritually present, 
then such phenomena as transubstantiation and 
Millerism will disappear.” 

“ This doctrine of the real presence of Christ,” 
said Mr. Warland, “would certainly, if believed, 
give great meaning to the idea of his kingdom. 
He is present to my heart, if I believe in him, to 
supply me with strength to work for him as a 
member of his Church. He is present with his 
Church, if it believes in him, to give it strength 
to work for him in the world. He comes in the 


46 DEACON Herbert’s bible-class 

world, as his religion of truth and love becomes 
more and more powerful to overcome the evils 
which prevail in society. If we can believe this, 
then we have a beautiful and noble aim given us 
in life. It is to cause God’s kingdom to come 
more and more in our hearts, by feeling more 
and more and receiving more and more the puri- 
fying inward presence of our Saviour. It is to 
cause God’s kingdom to come more abundantly 
in the Church, by causing the Church to receive 
its life and truth more immediately from its 
Master, and less from human sources. It is to 
cause God’s kingdom to come in the world by 
the reformation of social evils, making ourselves 
Christ’s hands and feet, his voice, his instru- 
ment in carrying light and love into every haunt 
of darkness and despair. If we really can be- 
lieve that Jesus himself is present with us, we 
shall have courage to attempt this, not other- 
wise. All depends on faith.” 

“ I am satisfied,” said the doctor, “ that, with 
such an object as this, and with such a faith 
wherewith to accomplish it, we can become far 
more useful than by merely proposing as our ob- 
ject to do good.” 

“ I am satisfied,” said I, “ that, with such an 
object, we should develop all our powers more 


AIM OF LIFE 47 

fully than if we proposed self-culture as our 
aim.” 

“I am satisfied,” said Mr. Warland, “that we 
should be more sure to save our soul than if we 
proposed the saving our soul as our object.” 

“ I am satisfied,” said Alice Alton, “ that, with 
such an object as this, we should be very sure 
always to do our nearest duty.” 

“Then,” said Deacon Herbert, “we seem to 
be all of one mind, and we can therefore stop 
here. So we will sing this hymn before we 
part : — 

“ ‘ Through Thee we now together came, 

In singleness of heart ; 

We met, 0 Jesus, in thy name. 

And in thy name we part. 

“ ‘ We part in body, not in mind ; 

Our minds continue one ; 

While each to each in Jesus joined. 

We hand in hand go on. 

“ ‘ Present we still in spirit are. 

And intimately nigh. 

While on the wings of faith and prayer 
We each to other fly. 

“ ‘ Our life is hid with Christ in God ; 

Our life shall soon appear. 

And shed his glory all abroad 
In all his members here.’ ” 


IV 

TEMPTATION OF JESUS. 

I WENT to the Bible-class one evening, when 
the subject of conversation was the “Tempta- 
tion of Jesus.” I was interested in the discus- 
sion, and will endeavor to relate its substance. 

Deacon Herbert introduced the subject by 
reading the passages from the first three Gos- 
pels which contain the account of the tempta- 
tion; namely, the first eleven verses in the 
fourth chapter of Matthew, the first thirteen 
verses in the fourth chapter of Luke, and the 
two verses referring briefly to this event in the 
first chapter of Mark. After having called our 
attention to the slight differences in these state- 
ments, he said, — 

“ Now, I should like to have you tell me what 
you think all this means.” 

After a short silence, our good farmer said: 
“ The meaning seems plain enough. I suppose 
that Jesus was really tempted by the devil. I 
know that it is not the fashion now to believe 
in a real devil; but it seems to me that the 
Scripture teaches very plainly that there is 
one.” 


TEMPTATION OF JESUS 


49 


“But the question here,” said Deacon Herbert, 
“is not so much whether there be a personal 
devil as whether he appeared to Jesus in an 
outward shape as the devil.” 

“ Why. not ? ” said Farmer Haystack. 

“ Because, by assuming an outward devil, you 
destroy the reality of the temptation. Would 
it be any temptation, even to you or me, to have 
such offers made to us by an actual devil, known 
to be such, standing before us in bodily form ? 
There would be no great merit in resisting such 
a temptation as that, I think. It is when he 
disguises himself as an angel of light, it is when 
the temptation comes from what seems a good 
source, and in a plausible form, that it has 
power. So you see you must choose between 
a visible devil and a real temptation. You can- 
not have both.” 

“I did not think of that,” said the farmer. 

“Besides,” interposed Townsend, “there are 
other difficulties, if we take the story literally. 
How could all the kingdoms of the world be 
seen from the top of a mountain ? What temp- 
tation would it be to throw one’s self from the 
top of the temple ? Is it not evident, that, if the 
story has any meaning, it cannot be found in its 
literal form ? ” 


50 DEACOx Herbert’s bible-class 

“ Some people,” said Dr. Hunter, “ suppose it 
to be a vision, or a dream.” 

“The objection to that,” replied the deacon, 
“ is that, if Jesus merely dreamed or imagined 
these incidents, they would have no importance, 
and would not have been related. What he 
saw or did in a dream would have been no real 
temptation, and would have made no part of his 
actual experience.” 

“ Some persons,” said the doctor, “ think the 
whole story a myth.” 

“ When we can do nothing else with it, we 
will get rid of it in that way,” replied the dea- 
con. “It seems to me that this explanation 
should be our last resort.” 

“I have somewhere read,” said Mr. Warland, 
“an explanation which makes the tempter to 
have been a man sent by the Jewish Council to 
find out who Jesus was. But this, too, always 
seemed to me a desperate resort, supported by 
nothing at all in the narrative. But may not 
the temptation have been something which oc- 
curred in the mind of Jesus, which he described 
to his disciples in this form?” 

“Explain yourself more fully,” said the dea^ 
con. 


TEMPTATION OF JESUS 5 1 

“Why, I have supposed that, at the begin- 
ning of his ministry, Jesus may have retired 
into the wilderness to meditate on the work be- 
fore him, and to prepare himself for it. While 
there, he may have had a great many thoughts 
as to the way in which he might employ his mi- 
raculous powers, so as to procure for himself 
recognition, or power, or personal enjoyment. 
All these temptations he rejected, and afterward 
described this experience in his life to his disci- 
ples, as we now have it.” 

“But why should he have put it in this 
form?” said the doctor: “why not tell the 
story plainly?” 

“Perhaps,” replied Mr. Warland, “his disci- 
ples could not have understood the account. 
The thoughts of Jesus might have been too deep 
and refined for their comprehension ; and so he 
was obliged to tell it in some such allegorical 
way as this or not at all.” 

“Your explanation,” said the deacon, “must, 
I think, be the true one, so far as this : that this 
transaction was something which passed in the 
mind of Jesus, and was afterward related by him 
in the form of an allegory or parable ; for only by 
some such supposition can we regard the tempta- 


52 DEACON HERBERT'S BIBLE-CLASS 

tion as real. But this does not remove all the 
difficulty. In fact, the chief difficulty remains 
thus far untouched. Do you sujipose that, when 
these thoughts passed through the mind of 
Jesus, he really wished to use his power for 
these personal and selfish ends? or did he 
merely think about it^ without wishing it ? ” 

“I suppose,” said Mr. Warland, “that he 
merely saw in his own mind how he might use 
his power, to make himself master of the world, 
to acquire immense reputation and honor, or to 
obtain all the joys of life. He saw how he 
might do this. I do not suppose he wished to 
do it.” 

“Why not?” 

“Because such a wish would have implied 
sin; and we are told that, though tempted in 
all respects as we, he was without sin. Such a 
wish would have implied selfishness on his part, 
the desire of preferring his own will to that of 
God. It would have implied a degree, however 
slight, of moral depravity.” 

“But did not the thought imply this, too? 
Was not the thought a sin, even without any 
desire ? ” 

“No,” interrupted the minister. “Mr. War- 


TEMPTATION OF JESUS 


53 


land is right. The thought was no sin, though 
the wish would have been so. As Milton 
says,— 

“ Evil into the mind of God or man 
May come, and go, so unapproved, and not 
Leave any stain behind.” 

Jesus might have seen every possible course of 
action which was open to him; but merely to 
see these implied no evil, so long as he had no 
wish to enter upon them. God sees all the evil 
that there is in the world ; but this implies no 
depravity in him. The mere knowledge of evil 
is not evil, any more than the knowledge of 
good is goodness.” 

All seemed to be pleased with this view ; and 
the doctor rubbed his hands cheerfully, saying ; 
“I think we have got at the true explanation 
now. Mr. Warland always helps us out of our 
difficulties. The thing is perfectly plain.” 

“Wait a moment,” said the deacon: “let us 
not be too sure. Mr. Warland has shown that 
Jesus may have had these thoughts without sin. 
But, in that case, what becomes of the tempta- 
tion ? The text says that he was tempted in all 
points as we, yet without sin. Our task is a 
twofold one. We have to show on the one side 


54 


DEACON HEEBERT’s BIBLE-CLASS 


that the temptation of Jesus was without sin, 
and, on the other, that he was really tempted as 
we are. Now, can there he any reality in a 
temptation where there is not the least desire to 
do wrong? But, where there is desire to do 
wrong, is there not already sin? Here is the 
great difficulty which we have to meet. You, 
Mr. Warland, are the cashier of a bank. You 
every day handle large sums of money, some of 
which you might, if you chose, abstract, and no 
one be the wiser. If such a thought should 
occur to you to-morrow, would it be any temp- 
tation to you ? ” 

Mr. Warland smiled, and said, “I think not.” 

“ I know that it would not,” returned the dea- 
con ; “ and why not ? Because you are an hon- 
est man. Let a weaker man be placed in your 
situation, and the thought of taking the money 
would be the wish to take it, and so would be- 
come a real temptation. He might have con- 
science enough left to enable him to resist ; but 
he would be really tempted. So, if a perfectly 
temperate man is urged by his friends to drink 
intoxicating liquor, this suggestion is by no- 
means a temptation ; for he has no wish to drink 
it. It is only when the outward allurement 


TEMPTATION OF JESUS 


55 


finds an inward appetite corresponding to it that 
the suggestion becomes a temptation. The 
thought of evil without the desire for evil is no 
temptation; and, therefore, if Jesus merely had 
the thought in his mind of any improper way of 
exercising his power, he was not tempted at 
all.” 

“You seem to have led us into a serious diffi- 
culty,” said Townsend : “ now you must help us 
out of it.” 

“Not at all,” said the deacon. “It is my place 
to suggest questions and yours to answer them. 
But let us see where we are. You all admit 
that the only sound view is one which shall pre- 
serve the sinlessness of Jesus on the one hand 
and the reality of his temptation on the other.” 

“We do,” replied the doctor. 

“We have also concluded that one is not 
really tempted, except he actually desires that 
which is forbidden.” 

“On that point there can be no doubt.” 

“Then there must be some, mistake in our 
other assertion, that the desire to do wrong 
always argues a depraved appetite, and is in it- 
self sinful. See if you can find any fallacy in 
that statement.” 


56 DEACON Herbert’s bible-class 

After a few moments’ reflection, Mr. Warland 
spoke: “You said that if I, in the performance 
of my duty at the bank, should wish to appro- 
priate to my own use the money passing through 
my hands, it would argue a dishonest habit of 
mind. Under most circumstances, I think it 
would. If I could not see money without wish- 
ing for it, it would be the proof of a covetous 
disposition. But suppose that my family were 
starving, and I had no means to relieve their 
hunger, and, in passing the heaps of money dis- 
played in a money-broker’s window, I should 
wish for a single piece of it to save their lives, 
would that wish imply depravity, supposing that, 
when I had the opportunity of taking the money 
without any one’s knowing it, I should refuse 
to do so?” 

“You also said,” remarked the doctor, “that, 
■when the sight of intoxicating liquor excited a 
longing for it, it showed the presence of a de- 
praved appetite. So it does; but suppose a 
person who has signed a temperance pledge is 
dying of cold or thirst. To violate his pledge, 
and drink a glass of wine, might be wrong; 
but to feel a desire for it could hardly be a sin.” 

“ Or suppose,” said I, “ that I had some duty 


TEMPTATION OF JESUS 


57 


to perform at home this evening, which would 
have prevented me from coming to this meet- 
ing. To have neglected the duty in order to 
come to the meeting would have been wrong; 
but to wish to come to have the benefit of your 
conversation could hardly have been wong. 
Yet, if I wished to come, I should have wished 
to do that which was wrong.” 

“Or suppose,” said Townsend, “that some 
one knocks at my door on a cold day. I find 
a man there, who tells a pitiful story of his suf- 
ferings, and asks for relief. I have decided that 
it is wrong to give money at the door in charity, 
because the chances are that I shall be doing 
harm rather than good. It would be wrong, 
then, to give the money ; but to feel a desire to 
give the money would not, I judge, imply any 
special depravity on my part.” 

“Very well,” said the deacon : “you seem to 
think that to wish to do wrong is sometimes sin- 
ful and sometimes not sinful. Now, can you 
point out when it is sinful and when not, so 
that we may have some rule by which to judge 
of each instance?” 

“I have been considering the instances al- 
ready given,” said the minister, “and I think 


58 DEACON HEEBERt’s BIBLE-CLASS 

they bring us to this result : that, when a thing 
is wrong in itself, the desire to do it implies sin ; 
but when it is only wrong under the circum- 
stances^ then to wish to do it is not necessarily 
sinful. Thus, to give a poor man a piece of 
money is not wrong in itself, but only wrong 
under the circumstances; that is, without proper 
inquiry. To come to this meeting is not wrong 
in itself, but only wrong under the circum- 
stances; that is, when it interferes with more 
important duties. But cruelty, falsehood, ex- 
cessive indulgence of the appetites, are things 
wrong in themselves : therefore, a desire to in- 
dulge thus implies a depraved appetite.” 

“This rule,” said the deacon, “may answer 
our purpose sufficiently well. Let us apply it 
to the case of Jesus, and see what he was 
tempted to do. Was it something wrong in 
itself, and therefore implying sin, or only some- 
thing wrong under the circumstances, and there- 
fore not implying sin ? Look at the first of the 
temptations, and give us an explanation of it.” 

“If we take it literally,” said the minister, 
“ and consider the temptation addressed to the 
natural appetite of hunger, it is evident that it 
was only wrong under the circumstances to wish 


TEMPTATION OF JESUS 


59 


to make the stones into bread. There is noth- 
ing wrong in using our power to supply our 
natural wants; but it would have been wrong 
for Jesus thus to have used the power given 
him for another purpose. But I suppose that 
there is a vast deal more implied in each of these 
temptations. I think that each stands as the 
symbol of a whole class of desires which Jesus 
experienced, but which he was obliged to deny, 
none of them being wrong in themselves, but 
only wrong under the circumstances; that is, 
inconsistent with the particular work which he 
had to do. I suppose that under this example 
of hunger is included the hunger of the soul as 
well as the body. The large soul of Jesus was 
filled with a boundless desire for a full experi- 
ence of this life. He loved nature, its sublimity 
and beauty ; but he must deny that taste. His 
heart hungered for affection ; but he had no one 
to sympathize with him or comprehend him. 
There was nothing in the world of culture, re- 
finement, or beauty, whether in art, nature, or 
society, but Jesus felt within himself a capacity 
for enjoying it. This capacity must be denied, 
and he must remain only in contact with the 
earthly, unideal Jewish multitude. He strength- 


6o DEACON HEKBERt’s BIBLE-CLASS 

ened himself for all this renunciation, the extent 
of which no mortal can comprehend; for no 
mortal can fathom the capacity of the mind of 
Jesus. He strengthened himself for it by the 
thought that true Life comes not from bread or 
external nutriment, but from the truth which 
God inwardly communicates to the mind and 
heart. So I understand this temptation. I 
suppose that Jesus gave the account .to his 
disciples, because he wished them to feel that 
they had not a Master who could not be touched 
with the feeling of their infirmities, but one who 
was tempted like themselves. But, as they 
could not in the least have understood his 
temptations, it was necessary to communicate 
them under a symbolic garb. The temptations 
of a good man are incomprehensible to one on 
a lower plane of develo^iment. When we hear 
a very spiritual person give his experience, what 
he calls temptation and sin often seem to us 
almost like virtues. Evidently, therefore, Jesus 
was obliged to adopt some such symbolical 
method as this, if he wished to relate the expe- 
rience to his disciples.” 

“I very much like what the minister has 
said,” observed Townsend ; “ but how is it with 


TEMPTATION OF JESUS 6 1 

the second temptation ? It is clear enough that 
this must be symbolical altogether; for what 
sort of a temptation would it be to cast one’s self 
from the pinnacle of the temple, in order to be 
caught by angels when falling? Literally taken, 
this would be an absurdity. It seems to sym- 
bolize the temptation to display ^ — the desire not 
only to be, but to appear, great and glorious. 
But, if. so, how does this feeling in the mind 
of Jesus agree with our definition of innocent 
temptation ? I should think that it implied 
something wrong, if one were not satisfied with 
being great, good, and wise, but also wished to 
appear so. This shows the activity of what the 
phrenologists call the organ of approbativeness, 
which seems to injure a character.” 

“Why so?” said Alice Alton. “ This organ, 
if it be one, is put in the head for some good 
purpose, I suppose ; and the love of approbation 
may have a legitimate sphere of action as well 
as an excessive one.” 

“ I did not think,” said Townsend, “ that you 
would defend the love of display ; for you have 
none of it.” 

“ Perhaps, then,” said she, “ I feel myself de- 
ficient for the want of it. But what is there 


62 DEACOis' Herbert’s bible-class 

wrong in wishing to be seen as we are ; to be 
recognized in our real character ; not only to be 
true, but to manifest our truth, and to have it 
recognized? A truly noble person, sure of his 
own worth, desires to be understood, not for the 
paltry gratification of private vanity, but for the 
sake of truth itself. He did not make his own 
soul. He did not make his own goodness. God 
made it : it belongs to God, and should be mani- 
fested for the glory of God. Is this not what 
Jesus means, in the last chapters of John, when 
he speaks so much of his glory and of being 
glorified, and of thus glorifying his Father? It 
was only by being recognized at his true worth 
that he could glorify God and benefit man.” 

“Well said,” cried the deacon: “I think we 
begin to understand it. The second temptation, 
then, means that Jesus was misunderstood by 
those around him, by his disciples, by the Jew- 
ish people, by the Jewish authorities. Ho one 
really saio him as he was, and he wished to be 
seen; and this was an innocent wish, a right 
wish in itself. But why was it a temptation, 
then? Why wrong under the circumstances?” 

“The temptation,” said Mr. Warland, “I 
suppose, was to hurry matters; not to wait 


TEMPTATION OF JESUS 


63 

God’s time; to so manifest his greatness and 
glory that every one should be convinced. This 
would have been wrong, because not God’s way. 
In God’s way and in God’s time, he would be 
recognized : that was enough. He must not 
tempt God even to gratify this lawful desire;, 
and he did not. The people came, asking for a 
sign, ready to believe in him if he would make 
some special manifestation of his power. But 
he refused : he overcame that temptation.” 

“And what is the meaning of the third?” 
said the deacon. 

“ That speaks for itself,” said Townsend. “It 
is power, success, triumph. But I suppose no 
common triumph, for that would have been no 
temptation. It was no common ambition which 
tempted Jesus. To conquer and possess all the 
kingdoms of the world after the manner of an 
Alexander or Caesar would have been no temp- 
tation to Jesus. But to succeed in establishing 
his dominion of truth and love in the souls of 
men, to make the kingdoms of the world the 
kingdoms of his Father, to establish his relig- 
ion at once as the universal religion of the 
Roman Empire, and spare the world the cen- 
turies of infidelity, heathenism, heresy, and 


64 DEACOX HEEBERT’s BIBLE-CLASS 

error which were to come, — this might have 
been an innocent temptation to the mind of 
Jesus. He saw that he could do it, and how: 
by worshipping the devil for a single moment; 
that is, by conceding a little to the spirit of the 
world ; by using for a little space worldly means, 
a little force, a little illusion ; by suffering, for 
one moment, expediency to triumph over prin- 
ciple. That was all that was necessary, — 
not falsehood, but a little management; not 
bloodshed, but a little terror. But no. This 
temptation, to which the noblest minds have 
so often yielded, — the temptation to use low 
means for a high end, — did not for a moment 
perplex the clear mind of Jesus. Better wait 
a thousand years than establish pure and unde- 
filed Christianity on the throne of the world 
by a single concession to the principle of evil. 
‘Get thee behind me, Satan. Thou shalt wor- 
ship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt 
thou serve.’” 

“I think,” said Deacon Herbert, “you have 
surmounted the difficulty, and shown that Jesus 
could be really tempted, yet without sin. But 
was he tempted in all respects as tee are? We 
have depraved appetites, to which our tempta- 


TEMPTATION OF JESUS 


65 

tions are addressed. But his temptations were 
addressed to undepraved appetites. Our nat- 
ures are unbalanced, disordered; our organiza- 
tion has been injured by ancestral sins; we 
inherit depraved tendencies, and we are edu- 
cated to evil by pernicious example and un- 
happy circumstances. But Jesus, by the peculi- 
arity of his birth, was free from hereditary evil, 
and by God’s guiding spirit saved from any 
irresistible action of outward circumstances to 
his injury. His temptations, therefore, were 
they not different from ours, after all?” 

“ They were certainly different in the way 
you state,” said I ; “ but this difference does 
not, I think, prevent him from being an exam- 
ple to us in his temptations. For the same 
elements of human nature were tempted in his 
case as in ours. All temptation, perhaps, may 
be included under these three desires, — de- 
sire of joy, of fame, of power. The temptation 
of a pure appetite, when resisted, may serve as 
an example to teach us to resist the temjitation 
of the same appetite in its depraved condition. 
So I might use, in a lecture on temperance, the 
example of Sir Philip Sidney, wounded on the 
field of battle, who took the cup of water from 


66 


DEACON HEKBEET’s BIBLE-CLASS 


his own mouth, and gave it to the parched lips 
of the dying soldier by his side. His denial of 
a pure appetite might be an example to the 
drunkard to resist an impure one.” 

“Enough,” said the deacon: “let us now ad- 
journ.’ 


V. 

THE PEECUESOE; OE, JOHN THE BAPTIST. 

Matt. xi. 1-19. Mark vi. 14-30. Luke i. 5-80; iii. 1-23. 

John i. 15-36. 

“To-day,” said the deacon, “we will talk 
about John the Baptist. Who were his father 
and mother?” 

“Zacharias and Elizabeth,” said Mr. Warland. 
“We read about them in the first chapter of 
Luke. Zacharias was a priest, and both were 
good people. In this chapter, we are told that 
an angel appeared to Zacharias, and foretold 
the birth of a son, who should be a prophet, 
and who should precede God’s new manifesto^ 
tion of himself, who should be a precursor of 
the Messiah, to make ready a people prepared 
for the Lord. In the third chapter of Luke, 
also, we have an account of the first preach- 
ing of John, in the fifteenth year of the reign 
of the Emperor Tiberius (which, by the way, 
gives us the only plain and certain date which 
we have in the gospel history). He is said to 
have preached repentance, and a reformation of 
morals and manners; to have baptized for the 


68 DEAcox Herbert’s bible-class 

remission of sins ; to have insisted on practical 
goodness, on strict honesty, on humanity, gen- 
tleness, and kindness.” 

“We also,” said Dr. Hunter, “find something 
about John the Baptist in the first chapter of 
the Gospel of John. In the sixth verse he is 
declared to have been, not the Light, but the 
witness to the Light ; and in the fifteenth verse, 
and the following verses, he declares himself in- 
ferior to Jesus, and sent only to prepare his w^ay. 
Then we have the account of his baptizing 
Jesus, in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and allu- 
sions to it in John. The .account of the murder 
of John by Herod is found in the fourteenth 
chapter of Matthew, the sixth of Mark, and the 
third of Luke.” 

“Let us read,” said the deacon, “the passage 
in the eleventh chapter of Matthew, which gives 
an account of John’s sending two of his disciples 
to Jesus to inquire whether he were the Messiah 
or not. ‘Art thou he that should come, or do 
we look for another?’ What did John mean 
by that question ? ” 

“I suppose,” said Townsend, “that he had 
some doubt in his mind as to whether Jesus 
were the Christ.” 


THE PRECUKSOE 


69 


“How could that he?” asked the deacon. 
“ He knew very well that Jesus was the Christ; 
for long before this (John i. 29-34) he had 
called Jesus the Lamb of God who takes away 
the sin of the world, had seen the Holy Ghost 
descending on him, and plainly intimated to his 
disciples (John iii. 26, etc.) that Jesus was the 
Christ. He had made up his mind on that point 
long before.” 

“Perhaps,” said the farmer, “his faith had 
failed.” 

“That seems unlikely,” said I. “John was 
not the sort of man to doubt of a thing after he 
had once made up his mind about it. He was 
no reed to be shaken by the wind. He was 
one of those men whose convictions never 
falter.” 

“Then, perhaps,” said Townsend, “he sent 
his disciples on their own account, that their 
faith in Jesus might be confirmed by what Jesus 
might say and do.” 

“That explanation,” I replied, “has always 
seemed to me inconsistent with John’s char- 
acter. He was too straightforward a person to 
take such a roundabout way of coming at his ob- 
ject. He would have told his disciples to go 


70 DEACON Herbert’s bible-class 

to Jesus and see for themselves; not to go as 
his messengers.” 

“I believe you are right,” said Townsend. 
“If one tries to imagine John hesitating and 
doubting, or devising such a plan as this to 
assure his disciples, the absurdity becomes evi- 
dent. But what was his motive, then ? What 
did he mean ? ” 

“ I have no doubt,” said I, “ that he was dis- 
satisfied with the course of Jesus, and meant to 
rebuke him. He was dissatisfied that Jesus was 
not doing the work of the Messiah in the way 
that he expected. He was looking for some tri- 
umphant display of power, by which the great 
multitudes whom he had roused were to be 
brought together, and to make Jesus a king, on 
the throne of his father, David. The cruel and 
time-serving Herod was to be deposed, the Ro- 
mans driven out of the land. John himself, as 
one result, was to be rescued from prison. But, 
instead of this, he heard of Jesus going to and 
fro in Galilee, curing sick people, and preaching 
here and there in the fields. This was not 
doing the work of the Messiah as John under- 
stood that work. He had dared to rebuke the 
king on his throne for his vices; to command 


THE PRECURSOR 71 

armed soldiers to desist from their acts of vio- 
lence : he would noAV even venture to tell the 
Messiah that he was doing his work negligently. 
‘ Art thou he that should come, or shall we have 
to look for another?’ That I take to be the 
meaning of his words. And this view, I be- 
lieve, accords with his character and circum- 
stances. He was in prison, and impatient of 
confinement. Accustomed to the free life of 
the desert, he could bear anything better than 
his compelled inactivity.” 

“ This view,” said Mr. W arland, “ agrees with 
the answer of Jesus. He points out to John’s 
disciples his works of love, as better evidence 
of the coming of the Messiah than any works of 
power. That the blind see, the lame walk, the 
lepers are cleansed, are the highest proofs that 
the Messiah is about his work. Blessed is he 
who can understand that ; who is not offended 
by it, as John was; who can see Christ at hand 
wherever good is done.” 

“But did not Jesus mean to refer to these 
works because they were miracles?” 

“ I think not,” said I ; “ for, if so, why should 
he have included among them that the poor 
had the gospel preached to them ? He brought 


72 DEACON Herbert’s bible-class 

them forward as works of mercy, in opposition 
to John’s expectation of works of power.” 

“ What you have said,” observed Mr. W ar- 
land, “ is also in accordance Avith the subsequent 
remarks of Jesus iq^on the character of John, 
which seem intended to excuse the rudeness of 
this message. Probably the disciples of Jesus 
expressed some displeasure with John for hav- 
ing sent such a message ; but J esus bade them 
consider the character of John and the nature 
of his Avork. Gentleness and courtesy are not 
to be expected from a man like John. Ilis 
Avork was to prepare the way of the Messiah, 
by rousing the attention and breaking up the 
indifference of the Jewish mind. As the plough 
must go before the seed, as the fire must soften 
the wax to recede the impression of the seal, 
so John, a stern and awful prophet, must come 
first to rouse the nation from its deathlike 
lethargy. Such a work could only be done by 
a man Avho should have the spirit of Elijah, — 
terrible in his determined purpose, his fiery 
zeal, his inflexible persistency ; a man ‘ un- 
shaken, unseduced, unterrified.’ A man clothed 
in soft raiment, a reed shaken by the wind, a 
civil and polite gentleman, would not have 


THE PKECUESOR 


73 


carried those multitudes into the wilderness to 
see him. We must not expect to find every 
virtue in one man. John has energy, loyalty, 
constancy. Be satisfied with that, and excuse 
the absence of the deeper insight and the 
gentler spirit.” 

“But what is meant,” said Deacon Herbert, 
“by the eleventh verse? ‘Arhong them that 
are born of women there hath not risen a 
greater than John the Baptist; notwithstanding, 
he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is 
greater than he.’ ” 

“May it not mean,” said Alice, “that John 
is the greatest prophet who has come in the 
spirit of Moses and of the law, but that the 
least of those who come in the spirit of the 
gospel is his superior? The phrase, ‘born of 
women,’ may be opposed to the phrase, ‘born of 
God,’ or ‘ of the Spirit.’ It may imply that 
John was great, according to the spirit of the 
old covenant and past dispensation, which acted 
on men by the power of signs and wonders, 
terror and denunciation, driving them into the 
kingdom of heaven by force and fear. Jesus 
says in the twelfth verse, ‘From the days of 
John the Baptist until now the kingdom of 


74 DEACON Herbert’s bible-class 

heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take 
it by force.’ But in the new covenant the 
motives are different. Not fear, hut hope ; not 
repulsion, but attraction; not hatred of evil, 
but love of good, — is the motive under the reign 
of Jesus, when the law is written in the heart, 
and the spirit given by which men say, ‘ Our 
Father.’ ” 

“ These explanations,” said the doctor, “ bring 
the whole passage into a beautiful connection. 
The opposition between the character, ideas, ex- 
pectations, and merit of John and those of Jesus, 
is clearly indicated. So, in the next passage (i. 
16-19), Jesus, by a comparison taken from the 
plays of children, who imitate rejoicings and 
mournings, weddings and funerals, shows the 
inconsistency of those who find fault with every 
kind of religious teacher. If a man is austere 
and ascetic, like John, they call him a fanatic or 
an enthusiast ; if of a more liberal and cheerful 
spirit, like Jesus, ‘he is a gluttonous man and a 
wine-bibber,’ he is not serious enough. But 
‘Wisdom is justified of all her children.’ Each 
has a merit of his own, and a work of his own ; 
and each must do it in his own way.” 

“My business, my work,” said the deacon. 


THE PKECUKSOK 


75 


“ appears to be to suggest difficulties, and yours 
to resolve them. I will therefore ask how you 
can reconcile the fourteenth verse, ‘ This is that 
Elias which was for to come,’ with John i. 21, in 
which John replies to those who asked if he was 
Elias, ‘ I am not.’ ” 

“The expression,” said the doctor, “‘if ye 
will receive it,’ seems to indicate that it is not 
to be taken literally.” 

“And the passage,” said Townsend, “Luke 
i. 17, ‘He shall go before him in the spirit and 
power of Elias,’ shows that he was not to he 
Elias, but to have his character.” 

“ And it is remarkable,” said Mr. W arland, 
“how much John the Baptist resembled Elijah. 
Both were stern and austere prophets who 
feared not the face of man. Elijah reproved 
King Ahab to his face, as John the Baptist re- 
proved Herod to his face. Elijah was perse- 
cuted by Jezebel, who sought his life, as John 
the Baptist was persecuted by Herodias, who 
succeeded in destroying him. John lived in the 
wilderness : so, also, did Elijah flee into the wil- 
derness. Elijah in his cave, condemned to in- 
activity, became desponding and dispirited, as 
we have seen that John became dispirited, when 
condemned to inactivity in his prison. Elijah 


76 DEACON HERBEET’s BIBLE-CLASS 

and John seem to have made the same mistake 
in thinking that outward, apparent success was 
the only real success. Elijah was taught that 
the Lord was not in the whirlwind or the fire, 
hut in the still, small voice. John the Bajitist 
was taught that works of mercy and humanity 
were truer signs of the coming of Christ than 
miracles of power exerted to put down his ene- 
mies. Elijah must cast his mantle on Elisha, 
giving up his prophetic ofiice to his successor, 
who was to have a double portion of his spirit ; 
and John, in like manner, gave place to Jesus, 
who was to be greater than himself and to be 
preferred before him. And, finally, the work of 
Elijah and John was similar, both being great 
reformers, denouncing the immoralities of their 
age and preparing the way for a better epoch.’’ 

“ One remark more I would make,” said the 
deacon, “before we separate. We see in the 
history of John the Baptist how, in the order of 
Providence, nothing stands alone, but all things 
work together for the ordained results. Each 
man has his work to do in the great develop- 
ment of humanity. His place may appear small, 
but his work is not insignificant, as the smallest 
pin in the watch is essential to its correct move- 
ment. The way of Christ must be prepared be- 


THE PEECUESOR 


77 


forehand. Among the Jews, the law and the 
prophets prepared his way. Among the Gen- 
tiles, all wise and good men prepared his way. 
He could not come until men were prepared by 
previous influences to understand and love his 
truth. The law was a schoolmaster to bring 
men to Christ. So, too, Socrates and Plato, 
Zeno and Epictetus, and all pure and gener- 
ous souls, each in his place, helped to prepare 
the way, till the fulness of time was come; 
and then John the Baptist performed the last 
work of preparation, by awakening multitudes 
to a sense of their needs, and sending them to 
Jesus, who alone could satisfy those needs. 
Let us all take courage, then ; for we each can 
do something at least to prepare the way for 
Christ’s coming to some mind or heart. We 
can bring down the mountain of prejudice, we 
can fill up the valley of ignorance, we can 
smooth the rough places by a refining influence, 
and so remove the obstacles which stand in the 
path of the gospel; and happy is he who is 
not offended because his work is thus humble. 
Happy he who knows that the kingdom of 
heaven comes not with observation ; not in the 
whirlwind, nor the fire, but in the still, small 
voice.” 


YI. 

THE MIEACLES. 

“This evening,” said Deacon Herbert, “our 
subject is the miracles of Jesus. It is a large 
subject and an intricate one. Moreover, it has 
been confused by recent disputes and discus- 
sions; and therefore, in order to come to any 
clear result, we must have a clear method by 
which to consider it. We must look at one 
thing at a time. I invite you to regard the 
miracles of Christ : — 

“ 1. Historically — as matters of fact. 

“2. Philosophically — as to their nature and 
laws. 

“3. Theologically — as to their purpose and 
object. 

“4. Spiritually — as to their inner meaning 
and spiritual significance. 

“The miracles of Christ in the New Testa- 
ment are spoken of as signs, wonders, and 
mighty works, and have three Greek words 
applied to them : dunamis^ power, semeion^ sign? 
and teras^ wonder. They are works of wonder, 
or strange works, — works which indicate power. 


THE MIEACLES 


79 


and the purpose of which is to- be a sign. They 
are of different kinds, but manifesting a power 
superior to anything ever known. In order to 
see this, it is only necessary to classify them ; 
and I have requested Mr. Townsend to draw 
up such a classification, which he will read 
to us.” 

Townsend (reads from a paper) : — 

Class 1. Miracles of Healing. A variety of 
diseases is said to have been removed, some- 
times by a word, sometimes by a touch, some- 
times when Jesus was at a distance from the 
person healed, sometimes without his own in- 
tention or previous knowledge. Those born 
blind received their sight; the lame walked; 
a man who had been paralyzed for thirty-eight 
years recovered his sight ; the deaf heard ; the 
dumb spake ; fevers were removed ; leprosy was 
cured ; insane persons were restored at once to 
their right minds. 

Class 2. The Dead Raised. Those dead 
to all appearance were, in three instances, re- 
stored : one, a maiden who had just expired ; 
the second, a young man who was being carried 
out to be buried; the third, Lazarus, who had 
been buried four days. 


8o DEACON Herbert’s bible-class 

Class 3. Relating to Food.* In the two in- 
stances of five thousand persons fed with five 
loaves and two fishes, leaving twelve baskets 
full of fragments, and the four thousand persons 
fed with seven loaves, leaving the seven baskets 
full. In this class, also, belongs the water 
changed to wine at the marriage-feast. 

Class 4. A 'Wonderful Influence over the 
Powers of Nature., — as in stilling a storm, on 
one occasion, by a command addressed to the 
winds and waves, and in another walking upon 
the water. 

Class 5. An Influence upon Organic life., 
Vegetable and Animal., — as in the case of the 
fig-tree, withered by a command ; the miracu- 
lous draught of fishes on two occasions; the 
herd of swine, and the fish with a piece of 
money in its mouth. 

Class 6 . Miracidous Insight and Foresight. 
Shown in his knowledge of Nicodemus ; of the 
thoughts of Nathanael under the fig-tree; of the 
history of the Samaritan woman; of the char- 
acter of Peter and Judas afterward shown by 

♦The view which Mr. Clarke took of this event was that 
under the influence of Jesus those who had brought food with 
them shared freely with those who had none, and so there was 
found enough and to spare. 


THE MIEACLES 


8l 


the denial of the one and treachery of the 
other ; of his own coming death and resurrec- 
tion, the destruction of the temple, and other 
events which were to follow. 

Class 7. The Transfiguration^ Resurrection^ 
and Ascension of Christ himself. 

Class 8. Supernatural Appearances and 
events accoinj^anying Jesus through his life, 
and indicating that the wall between this world 
and the higher world was broken through or 
weakened ; angels appearing before his birth 
and after his death, and ministering to him in 
the most trying scenes of his life ; voices and 
appearances from heaven, — the sun darkened at 
his death, earthquakes, and other similar signs. 

One marked peculiarity of these miracles is 
that they were performed without an effort, and 
that there is no evidence that Jesus ever 
attempted to work a miracle and failed. 

Deacon Herbert. — “ Thank you, Mr. Town- 
send. How, what evidence have we that these 
acts were really performed ? ” 

Doctor Hunter. — “That of the four evange- 
lists, two of whom, Matthew and John, were 
eye-witnesses ; a third, Mark, is said to have 
been the companion of Peter, who was an eye- 


82 DEACON HEEBERT’s BIBLE-CLASS 

witness ; and the fourth, Luke, was a companion 
of Paul, and a contemporary of the apostles. 
These apostles differ enough from each other to 
show that the writers were independent wit- 
nesses, and did not copy from one another. 
They are sufficiently alike to show an agree- 
ment in all essentials. They have come to us 
from the earliest times in the shape in which 
they stand, and, moreover, they have been 
quoted and referred to by a succession of 
writers from the second century to the present 
time.” 

Deacon Herbert. — “ But could not the stories 
of the miracles have been inserted in the Gos- 
pels afterward ? ” 

The minister. — “The answer to that is that 
they are woven into the Gospels throughout, 
and we see no marks of insertion. They form 
part of the warp and woof. We might as well 
suggest that half of the figures in this carpet 
were woven in after the carpet was made. Be- 
sides, the miracles belong to the character of 
Christ, and are in perfect harmony with it; 
and, as Rousseau says, ‘he who could invent 
such a character would be more remarkable than 
the character himself.’ ” 


THE MIEACLES 


83 


“ I believe,” said Mr. W arland, “ that the 
opponents of Christianity in the earliest times 
never denied the miracles as matters of fact. 
They ascribed them to magic or to demons, 
but made no question of their reality. We 
question them, in our day, because our science, 
dwelling too exclusively on law and omitting 
love, has given us a dead universe instead of a 
living, mechanics instead of dynamics. To me, 
it seems altogether natural, and to be expected 
beforehand, that, when such a being as Christ 
came, the world should grow plastic around 
him ; that his marvellous energy of soul should 
develop susceptibility in what we call dead 
matter ; and that his life should make the world 
around him more living. It may seem a ])ara- 
dox, but I think that, without what we call the 
suj^ernatural part, the Gospels would not be half 
as natural as they are.” 

Deacon Herbert. — “ It is not necessary for us 
to go farther with the argument for the reality 
of these facts, since none of us is disposed to 
doubt it. The evidence which we have is more 
than sufficient to prove them, unless there be the 
strongest antecedent objections to their possibil- 
ity or probability. Impossible they cannot be, 


84 DEACON HEKBEKt’s BIBLE-CLASS 

since, even assuming them to be violations of 
law, the power of the Deity is adequate to sus- 
pend the laws of the material universe which he 
has made. Improbable they would only be, if 
their tendency and purpose are inconsistent 
with the providence of God. The objections to 
miracles are not historical, but philosophical. 
No one pretends that there is not ample evi- 
dence to prove them historically true, provided 
that they are philosophically probable. Let us 
then pass on to our second division, and con- 
sider miracles philosophically, according to their 
nature and laws. What is a miracle, and how is 
it defined?” 

Townsend. — “The usual definition of a mira- 
cle is that it is a suspension of the laws of 
nature.” 

Deacon Herbert. — “Then, before we can 
know that any phenomenon is a miracle, we 
must be perfectly acquainted with the laws of 
nature, else we cannot be sure that a law is 
really broken. The Arab prince who was told 
by the northern crusader that in his country the 
water became so hard as to support on its sur- 
face an armed knight on horseback, if he be- 
lieved the story at all, would believe that the 


THE MIRACLES 


8s 

laws of nature were violated, and that it was a 
miracle. Some years since, if we had been 
told that the air could be frozen solid and car- 
ried about in our hand, that our portrait could 
be drawn in a few seconds by the light of the 
sun, and that persons hundreds of miles distant 
could converse with each other by means of 
lightning, we should have believed all these 
things violations of the laws of nature, and mi- 
raculous. ]Krow we know that in all these in- 
stances no law of nature is broken or suspended, 
but is overcome by the operation of some higher 
law. When I lift my arm, the law of gravita- 
tion is not violated or suspended, but overcome 
by a higher law or power, the law of life.” 

“ Then,” said Dr. Hunter, “ you do not sup- 
pose the miracles of Jesus to have been violations 
of the laws of nature, but manifestations of a spir- 
itual power in him, great enough to overcome, for 
the time, the better known laws.” 

“ That is my opinion,” said the deacon ; “ for 
I see no necessity of assuming that any law of 
nature was suspended, and we should make no 
such assumption unnecessarily. The perma- 
nence of law is one of the great features of the 
divine government and of the order of the uni- 


86 DEACON Herbert’s bible-class 

verse. There is a profound instinct of the 
human reason which leads us to believe in the 
permanence of law; and, by means of this in- 
stinct, the human mind has made all its great 
discoveries, and all these discoveries are dis- 
coveries of law. The domain of law is contin- 
ually being extended farther and farther. If 
we define a miracle as a violation of law, we 
make it offensive to human reason, and create 
an antecedent improbability against its occur- 
rence. It is not so defined in the Bible, nor is 
it necessary to define it thus for the religious 
needs of our faith. The Bible, as we have seen, 
gives three names to these works of Jesus. 
They are ‘ wonders,’ as regards their own char- 
acter, ‘mighty works,’ as regards the power of 
the Being who wrought them, and ‘signs,’ as 
indicating the deep significance and profound 
religious importance of his mission.” 

“But do you consider them natural or super- 
natural works?” said Townsend. 

“I believe them to have been both natural 
and supernatural,” said the deacon, — “ supernat- 
ural^ as regards common nature and the common 
laws at work around us, but natural^ as being 
manifestations of higher laws now at work in 


THE MIRA.CLES 


87 


higher worlds than this, and which may also be 
more widely operative in this world, when 
Christ’s kingdom is fully established here. On 
the other hand, I deny that the works of Christ 
were either unnatural or preternatural.” 

Dr. Hunter. — “I like the explanation of mir- 
acles which rejects the view commonly taken of 
them as arbitrary interruptions of the laws of 
nature, and as lawless phenomena breaking into 
the world. I agree that the human mind tends 
naturally to look for law in all things. In fact, 
all explanation consists in bringing a thing under 
law. But, if a miracle is in accordance with 
law, even with higher law, then it must have its 
conditions and limitations.” 

Deacon Herbert. — “ I admit it ; and there are 
intimations of these conditions in the New Tes- 
tament, as, for example, where faith is repre- 
sented as necessary in order to their perform- 
ance. ‘ Why could we not cast him out ? ’ said 
the disciples. And Jesus answered, ‘Because 
of your unbelief; howbeit, this kind goeth not 
out but by prayer and fasting.’ Again, he says, 

‘ Greater works than these shall ye do, because I 
go to my Father.’ And, again, he tells them that, 
if they have faith but as a grain of mustard-seed, 


88 DEACON Herbert’s bible-class 

they shall be able to do the most wonderful 
works.” 

Townsend. — “Do you mean to say, then, that 
one who has faith enough can work a miracle?” 

Deacon Herbert. — “Undoubtedly, or Jesus 
would not have said so. But, then, remember 
that one cannot have faith whenever he chooses. 
Faith has its outward as well as its inward con- 
ditions. It is a gift of God as well as the work 
of man ; and it is given by God according as it 
is required by the circumstances and needs of 
the individual and his time. A time may come 
in which miracles like those of Jesus, or greater 
works than those, will be necessary, and then, 
no doubt, they will be wrought. But here we 
will stop for to-day.” 


VII. 

THE MIRACLES OF JESUS — PART II. 

“ Before we begin the discussion of our sub- 
ject, which I believe,” said Dr. Hunter, “ is the 
theological and spiritual view of miracles, I 
wish to ask a question of the class in regard to 
the objections urged against miracles, and the 
right way of meeting these objections. I know 
that many conscientious, good men have diffi- 
culties about them. What is the root of this 
difficulty, and how shall it be removed ? ” 

“ The objection to miracles,” said the minis- 
ten, “has taken a different form at different 
periods. In the days of Jesus, his enemies do 
not appear to have questioned the reality of his 
wonderful works; but they attributed them to 
the power of demons, and so invalidated their 
weight as evidence of his mission. The diffi- 
culty, then, was not philosophical or scientific, 
but merely a personal objection to Jesus and his 
cause. At present, the case stands somewhat 
otherwise. Men who are willing to believe in 
Jesus, and who sympathize with his cause, can- 
not believe in his miracles. In the days of 


90 DEACON Herbert’s bible-class 

Christ all extraordinary events were referred to 
spiritual agency : now we refer everything to 
mechanical agency. Spiritual beings have been 
banished from the earth into a distant heaven or 
hell ; and nothing happens now, unless through 
gravitation, electricity, magnetism, or chemical 
affinity, by which names we conceal from our- 
selves our ignorance of the nature of elemental 
forces.” 

“But this modern objection to miracles,” 
said the doctor, “ takes different forms.” 

“Yes,” said the minister: “those who deny 
the facts began by explaining away the lan- 
guage of the New Testament. Thus the 
temjDter in the wilderness was a Jew sent by 
the Sanhedrim to sound Jesus. The large 
draught of fishes meant the Gentile converts. 
Angels are human messengers. Latterly, the 
miracles have become myths ; that is, spontane- 
ous poetry growing out of Old Testament rec- 
ollections. But this mode of explanation, how- 
ever ingenious, is too difficult in its application 
to succeed. Hence the need of getting at the 
root of the objection to miracles, which, as I 
believe, consists in our taking a mechanical 
view of nature rather than a spiritual view.” 


THE MIRACLES OF JESUS 9 1 

“ All objections,” said the doctor, “ as to their 
logical form, seem to resolve themselves at last 
into Hume’s, that ‘ it is contrary to experience 
that miracles should be true, but not contrary to 
experience that witnesses should be mistaken.’ ” 

“And yet,” said the minister, “how shallow 
this argument is ! When he says that miracles 
are contrary to experience, he must either mean 
contrary to all experience or contrary to most 
experience. If he intends the first, he begs the 
question ; for, if the miracles of Jesus be true, 
miracles are not contrary to all experience, and 
he has, therefore, to assume these to be false be- 
fore the argument is founded. But if he in- 
tends that miracles are contrary to most experi- 
ence, — that is, that they have never happened in 
any other case but this, — then his argument 
merely creates an antecedent improbability, 
which requires ample evidence of the fact, in 
order to remove it; and a like antecedent im- 
probability will rest against every extraordinary 
event which has only occurred once in human 
history. It would have been thought improb- 
able beforehand that a shower of stars should 
take place, like that which occurred in 1833.” 

“ But what is the right way of treating these 


92 


DEACON Herbert’s bible-class 


difficulties, when we find them existing in 
honest, truth-loving minds?” 

“First, let us try to substitute a spiritual 
view of nature for the mechanical view ; try to 
make men feel that God is in the world, and not 
outside of it ; that God is a present Creator, and 
not merely a past Creator ; that he is not only 
the Infinite Order of the universe, hut the Infi- 
nite Freedom, too. Next, let us understand 
that Christianity does not rest upon miracles, 
hut miracles upon Christianity ; that a man who 
believes in Christ upon any ground, and en- 
deavors to follow him, is a Christian, and that, 
therefore, one is not to suppose that he is hound 
to reject Christianity because he cannot see how 
to accept miracles. He is a Christian who looks 
to Jesus as the manifestation of God’s truth, 
God’s love, and God’s will. One may believe 
this on the ground of miracles ; another, on that 
of prophecy ; another, on that of the character 
of Jesus himself ; another, because of the effect 
which his life has had upon the world. If, on 
any such ground, one comes to take Jesus as 
Teacher, Master, Saviour, he is plainly a Chris- 
tian.” 

Deacon Herbert. — “You have brought us, 


THE MIRACLES OF JESUS 


93 


very naturally, to our theological question, which 
regards the purpose of a miracle. What is the 
object of a miracle ? ” 

Townsend. — “It is to prove the truth and the 
divine mission of Jesus, and to give authority 
to his teachings. The minister has justly said 
that miracles are not the only foundation of 
Christian belief, and that the building may stand 
firm, in many cases, without them ; but they cer- 
tainly are one foundation.” 

Dr. Hunter. — “ But how can a miracle prove 
the truth of a doctrine ? What connection is 
there between power and trutli ? If a doctrine 
seems to me unreasonable, inconsistent with all 
I know of the nature of God and of man, how 
can a miracle lead me to believe in it ? ” 

Townsend. — “ The miracles of Christ are not 
intended to be proofs of the truth of his doctrine, 
but of the reality of his mission. They prove 
that God was with him ; for only the power of 
God could enable him to do them. They prove 
the authority of Christ directly, and the truth 
of what he says indirectly, by means of that 
authority.” 

“Still,” replied the doctor, “I do not see that 
an extraordinary display of power can prove the 


94 


DEACON Herbert’s bible- class 


divine authority of Jesus. Power is not always 
goodness. Evil beings have power as well as 
good beings. N’o doubt, if I could be sure that 
a man had accomplished a wonderful work, 
which he could only do by the power of God, 
then, indeed, I should know that God had set 
his seal to the truth of his mission. But this is 
just what I cannot know. I see a wonderful 
phenomenon : for example, a man apparently 
dead comes to life again. But, in the first 
place, my senses may deceive me, even though 
I myself were a witness of the fact : he may not 
have been really dead, but only apparently so. 
And, again, supposing him to have been really 
dead and brought to life by the power of the 
miracle-worker, am I sure that this is divine 
power ? What do we know of the laws of life 
and death ? Can we pronounce it an impossibil- 
ity that life should return by some j^urely nat- 
ural process? Certainly not, until we know 
what life and death are, of both of which we 
are profoundly ignorant. And when we add to 
this, in the third place, that the reports of these 
miracles have come to us from a distant land, 
and through eighteen centuries, there is another 
possibility of mistake. Do not understand me 


THE MIRACLES OF JESTJS 


95 


as denying or doubting the reality of these trans- 
actions. I believe that they occurred essentially 
as related, and were performed by a divine 
power inherent in Jesus; but I believe this be- 
cause I have first believed in Christianity. If 
Christianity seemed improbable, if Jesus did not 
appear divine in his character and truth, I do 
not think that the miracles would prove him to 
be so.” 

Townsend. — “But Jesus himself appeals to 
miracles as proofs of his mission. He says: 

‘ Believe me for the works’ sake ’ ; ‘ The works 
which the Father hath given me to do bear wit- 
ness of me that the Father has sent me.’ So, 
too, his answer to John the Baptist’s messen- 
gers, in which he appeals to his miracles as evi- 
dence that he is the Messiah. So Peter, on 
the day of Pentecost, speaks of Jesus as ‘a man 
approved of God by miracles, wonders, and 
signs, which God did by him in the midst of 
you.’ ” 

Dr. Hunter. — “ May not Jesus have appealed 
to these works, not on account of their marvel- 
lous, but their benevolent character ? He tells 
us that the tree is known by its fruits, and that 
the good tree is known by the quality of good- 


96 


DEACON Herbert’s bible-class 


ness in its fruit. And why, then, if it is the ob* 
ject of miracles to remove unbelief, are we told 
that Jesus, in a certain place, did not many 
mighty works, because of their unbelief? On 
your theory, that should have been the very 
place in which to do them. Why does he re- 
quire faith before the miracle is performed, if 
the object of the miracle is to produce faith? 
Why, when people come asking for a sign, does 
he say that no sign shall be given them ? ” 

Here the opponents paused, each having ap- 
parently no more to say, and, unlike most dis- 
putants, being willing to stop when they were at 
the end of their arguments. All seemed inter- 
ested in the question, and waited for more light. 
I observed the deacon turn his eye to Mr. W ar- 
land, who had sat perfectly silent, resting his 
head on his hand during this argument. At 
length, observing the deacon’s eye fixed upon 
him, he colored a little, but spoke : — 

“ Perhaps there is some truth in both of these 
views, though I do not know that I can recon- 
cile them. A wrong view has been taken of 
miracles. Jesus never produced them, as a law- 
yer brings forward his arguments, to convince 
a doubting audience of his claims. His object 


THE MIRACLES OF JESUS 


97 


was, first, to do good ; and his miracles were (as 
Mr. Furness states) the natural expression of his 
benevolent character. But, secondly, he wished 
by his miracles to draw attention to himself, and 
thus to his truth ; to gain for himself an audi- 
ence and an opportunity ; and, thirdly, he 
wished by his miracles to convince those who 
were ready to be convinced, who, loving the 
truth he taught, wished to believe it divine. 
But he did not wish to convince them in the 
way of logic. The miracles are not addressed 
to the lower understanding, but to the whole 
spiritual nature. They show the supremacy of 
soul over body, mind over matter, the spiritual 
over the material; they show that those laws 
of nature which appear to us the most constant 
and universal may be modified in their action 
by other laws which we do not now under- 
stand.” 

“ Then,” said Alice, “ the object of the mira- 
cles was rather spiritual than logical. It was to 
help and strengthen the principle of faith where 
it already existed in a longing, seeking soul.” 

The minister. — “ That a miracle can only be 
of use where there is a spiritual preparation, 
and that on this account Jesus demanded faith 


98 DEACON HEEBEKT’s BIBLE-CLASS 

in the recipient, will appear from the fact that 
nobody was convinced but those who were thus 
prepared. The Sadducees were not convinced 
by the raising of Lazarus. They thought it 
a trick. How could they think otherwise, with 
their belief ? ” 

“ And so,” said I, “ the words of Jesus were 
verified: ‘If they hear not Moses and the 
prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though 
one rise from the dead.’ Lazarus did rise from 
the dead, and some of the Jews who saw it be- 
lieved ; but others went their way to the Phari- 
sees and told them of it.” 

“ I could never understand,” said the widow, 
“ how it was that those who saw such miracles 
did not believe in them.” 

“Because,” said the deacon, “we see not 
what is before our eye, but what is behind it. 
Our own prejudices and opinions pass through, 
our eye into the fact, and transform it. The 
Jews who believed Jesus an enthusiast, a disor- 
ganize!’, a fanatic, a dangerous man, looked at 
the miracle, and saw in it a trick, an audacious 
imposition, a blasphemous pretence. Holding 
the same opinions of any man, we should think 
the same of what we saw him do, were it ever 


THE MIEACLES OF JESUS 


99 


SO marvellous. Therefore, you see, all depends 
upon what we think of the man and of his cause. 
If we think well of him, the wonder is sur- 
rounded with a divine glory; if we think evil of 
him, it is shrouded in gloom and darkness.” 

“ Hence,” said the minister, very earnestly, 
“we see the need of faith in the value of the 
human. soul. Jesus came to save souls from sin. 
He who feels the importance of that will easily 
believe that the whole power of God should at- 
tend him in this work ; but who feels the impor- 
tance of it? Only he to whom sin seems worse 
than death and hell, holiness better than the 
outward universe, will believe that all forces 
should be under the control of the Being sent 
by God to do this work.” 

“Let us take that thought home,” said the 
deacon. “ Enough for to-night.” 


VIII. 


THE TWELVE. 

“The subject,” said Deacon Herbert, “is the 
twelve apostles. We have four lists: Matthew 
X. 2 ; Mark iii. 14 : Luke vi. 13 ; and Acts i. 13-. 
The order in which they stand is a little differ- 
ent in these four catalogues; but, in all, Peter, 
Janies, John, and Andrew come first; Philip, 
Bartholomew, Thomas, and Matthew next ; and 
in the third class stand James, the son of Al- 
pheus, Simon Zelotes, or the Canaanite, Thad- 
deus, as he is called in Matthew and Mark, or, 
as he is called in Luke and the Book of Acts, 
Judas, the brother of James ; and at the end of 
the list stands, very naturally, the traitor, Judas 
Iscariot.” 

“ It has often struck me as remarkable,” said 
Townsend, “that of most of the apostles we 
should hear so little except their names. Of 
Peter, James, and John, much is said ; but of 
the rest scarcely anything.” 

“Take the Concordance,” said Deacon Her- 
bert, “ and let us see how often they are men- 
tioned.” 


THE TWELVE 


lOI 


Townsend. — “ I will first look for Andrew. 
I find it said that he was the first of John the 
Baptist’s disciples who came to Jesus (John i. 
40) ; that he brought his brother Peter to Jesus 
(verse 41) ; that he was the first called by Jesus 
from his nets to be an apostle, with his brother 
Peter, and he seems to have been the first who 
said that Jesus was the Messiah. He is men- 
tioned in three other places, in a way that shows 
that he stood in somewhat nearer relation to 
Jesus than the rest; but of his apostolic labors 
we know nothing from the Gospels or the Acts.” 

“What do you find said of Philip?” asked 
the deacon. 

“ Only this : that he was called by Jesus (John 
i. 43); that he belonged to Bethsaida, where 
Peter and Andrew lived ; that he told Nathan- 
ael that he had found the Christ; and when 
Nathanael asked, ‘Can there any good thing 
come out of Nazareth?’ replied, ‘ Come and see.’ 
In John xiv. 8, he says, ‘Lord, show us the 
Father.’ But, except in the catalogue of 
apostles, he is not mentioned in the Book of 
Acts.” 

“ I find,” said Dr. Hunter, “ that Thaddeus is 
mentioned only once; that very little is re- 


02 


DEACON HEBBEET’s BIBLE-CLASS 


ported, except their names, of Bartholomew, 
Simon, Matthew, and James; and of Thomas 
Didymus only two things. It seems to me curi- 
ous that the Book of Acts should record so little 
concerning the greater number of the apostles.”" 

“Yet, I cannot think,” said Townsend, “that 
any of those who were selected by Jesus to be 
his apostles could have been inactive men. Per- 
haps this shows us that men who live and die in 
silence, who have no gift of utterance, may yet 
be capable of great usefulness. That which is 
the most talked about may not always be the 
most useful. Perhaps each of the apostles may 
have done a great and noble work, though an 
unrecorded one; and it may be a comfort to 
those who have no unusual power of expression 
that so many of the great apostles of Christ 
should have lived and died without having 
uttered anything which has been considered by 
the writers of the New Testament worth re- 
cording.” 

“ One thing they did at least,” said Mr. W ar- 
land, “ which showed the depth and strength of 
their character. They left all to follow Jesus. 
This was the one condition of being a disciple, 
and this they fulfilled. Ignorant as they were 


THE TWELVE 


103 


of the true character of Christ, they yet 
willingly made one great sacrifice. And great 
was their reward, not only in heaven, but also 
on earth. Humble and illiterate as they were, 
Jesus saw that they were capable of this, and so 
he chose them ; while the wise Nicodemus, the 
learned Gamaliel, and the illustrious Joseph of 
Arimathea were passed by. If .they had no 
other reward, to enjoy the society of Jesus was 
reward enough. They took the place of his 
mother and brethren to him : they became his 
intimate associates, and the founders of his 
Church.” 

“You suggest an interesting question,” said 
the deacon. “What principle of selection did 
Jesus follow in choosing these twelve apostles ? 
He must have seen something in their character 
and disposition to determine the selection. ‘ He 
knew what was in man,’ and in so important a 
matter as this he could not have acted without 
good reason.” 

“ If we may infer,” said Alice, “ his intention 
from the result, we might say that he proposed 
to include in the apostolic company a great 
variety of character and tendency. We find 
that those of them with whom we are ac- 
quainted differ from each other.” 


104 DEACox Herbert’s bible-class 

“And, therefore,” said the minister, “were 
better fitted to do the whole work which was to 
be done, and to see all sides of the truth. Jesus 
himself was a perfectly proportioned, complete, 
and harmonious character, but his disciples must 
have been more or less one-sided and imperfect ; 
and so it was necessary to have for his apostles 
men of different characters. For example, two 
of the apostles, Matthew and John, have written 
Gospels. But how different are these Gospels ! 
and different because each author presents his 
own view of Jesus. Matthew saw, understood, 
and remembered one class of incidents; John, 
another. Matthew gives an external view; 
John, a more interior view. Each one reports 
what his own capacity enabled him to see and 
comprehend.” 

“ If you will allow me,” said Alice, “ to use an 
illustration : in Jesus the truth shone as a pure, 
white ray; but, in entering the minds of his disci- 
ples, it was necessarily refracted by each one’s 
native obliquity, and so broken into colors. It 
was important, then, that each color should be 
represented by some individual, and thus the 
whole ray of truth be preserved. If you will 
allow me to pursue this figure, we may remark 


THE TWELVE 


105 

in the three leading aj^ostles three of the colors 
of this spiritual spectrum. Peter is represented 
by the color of jire ^ — the fire of zeal and faith. 
James, the teacher of practical duty, of earthly 
virtue, of household goodness (surnamed, as tra- 
dition informs us, the Just), is the refreshing 
green of earth ; and John, in his lofty aspiration, 
in his spiritual and almost mystic tone of ele- 
vated piety, may well be symbolized by that 
deep Hue which is the color of the profoundest 
heaven.” 

“ But why,” said Dr. Hunter, “ was Judas 
chosen to be a disciple ? That is a point which 
has sometimes troubled me ; for it seems as if 
Jesus must have known that he would prove a 
traitor.” 

“ That is a difficult question,” said the deacon, 
“ to be sure. But let us see what you can make 
of it.” 

“If Jesus had been certain that Judas would 
betray him, it would seem as though, in choos- 
ing him and placing him in the situation where 
he would have the opportunity to commit the 
crime, Jesus himself were an accessary to it. 
That is one difficulty which has troubled me,” 
said the doctor. 


Io6 DEACON HERBEKT’s BIBLE-CLASS 

“ But there is no reason,” said the minister, 
“for thinking that Jesus had any such certainty^ 
or could have. Judas had the power of becom- 
ing either a faithful disciple or a traitor. No 
doubt, if he had been faithful, he would have 
been most useful ; for he was no commonplace 
character. In choosing him as a disciple, Jesus 
offered him a great opportunity, and at the same 
time exposed him to a great temptation. But 
that is always the case. Every great oj^portu- 
nity implies a great risk.” 

“ But was it not a bad thing for Judas, with 
his evil tendencies, to be exposed to such a 
temptation ?” 

“ I do not know that,” said the minister. “ If 
the evil w^ere in him, perhaps it ^vas as well for 
him that it should come out. If this evil were 
in his heart, it may have been better for him 
that, by its developing into action, he should be- 
come aware of it. However, there are difficul- 
ties connected with this point which I do not 
feel able to explain. But I believe that Judas 
might have acted differently, and in that case 
would have assisted to accomplish the purposes 
of God directly, by his good qualities, as, in fact, 
he indirectly accomplished them by his crime.” 


THE TWELVE 


107 

“Let us next ask,” said Deacon Herbert, 
“what the apostles were chosen to do. What 
was their office ? ” 

“ It was, I suppose,” said Dr. Hunter, “ to go 
about with Jesus, hear what he said, and see 
what he did, that they might afterward be wit- 
nesses of what they had seen and heard. In the 
Book of Acts, when the place of Judas was to be 
supplied, and one to be chosen in his place to 
make up the number of the twelve, Peter says, 
‘Wherefore, of these men, which have com- 
l^anied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus 
went in and out among us, beginning from the 
baptism of John unto that same day that he 
was taken up from us, must one be ordained t6 
be a witness with us of his resurrection.’ ” 

“ In looking,” said Townsend, “ in the Book 
of Acts at the first sermons preached by the 
apostles, I have observed that they contain a 
fact, a doctrine, a duty, and a promise. They 
announce the fact of Christ’s resurrection. By 
this they prove the doctrine that he is the 
Christ, the Son of God. The duties commanded 
are repentance, faith, baptism, obedience; and 
the reward promised is the gift of forgiveness 
and the Holy Ghost. This seems to have been 


Io8 DEACON IIERBEEt’s BIBLE-CLASS 


the whole of the primitive gospel, as announced 
by the apostles ; and their mission was to go 
into all the world and preach this gospel to 
every creature.” 

“You speak of the twelve as though their 
office were merely that of preachers,” said the 
minister. “But had they not a special com- 
mission and a special authority besides?” 

Deacon Herbert. — “ Explain yourself, if you 
please, on that point.” 

“ I find,” said the minister, “ four special gifts 
with which they were endowed, as follows : — 

“1. Miraculous powers and gifts. 

“ 2. The keys of the kingdom of heaven. 

“ 3. Power to forgive sins. 

“4. Inspiration. 

“ Under the first head I find (Matthew x. 8) 
that, when they were first chosen, they were 
told, ‘ Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the 
dead, cast out devils; freely ye have received, 
freely give ’ ; and (in Mark hi. 14, 15) that Jesus 
‘ ordained twelve that they should be with him, 
and that he might send them forth to preach, 
and to have power to heal sicknesses, and to 
cast out devils.’ Under the second head, I find 
(Matthew xvi. 19) that Jesus tells Peter: ‘I 


THE TWELVE 


109 


will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of 
heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on 
earth, shall be bound in heaven ; and whatso- 
ever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in 
heaven’; and (in Matthew xviii. 18) the same 
commission is given, with the same authority, 
to all the apostles. Under the third head, I find 
(John XX. 22) that after the resurrection Jesus 
said to the apostles : ‘ Receive ye the Holy 
Ghost. Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are re- 
mitted unto them ; and whosesoever sins ye re- 
tain, they are retained.’ And, as regards the 
fourth point, I would refer to all those passages 
in the Gospel of John in which Jesus promised 
the apostles that he would send them the Holy 
Spirit, or the Spirit of Truth, to lead them into 
all truth.” 

Deacon Herbert. — “ These are certainly strik- 
ing and important passages, and have generally 
been believed to prove that a special power and 
authority was given to the apostles. But let us 
examine if this be true. Suppose that we 
should find that this same power and authority 
Tvere given to every Christian. What would 
follow then?” 

The minister. — “It would follow that the pre- 


no DEACON Herbert’s bible-class 

eminence of the apostles consists only in their 
being the first recipients of this power ; in being 
the channel through which it is communicated 
to others, and perhaps in possessing it in greater 
depth and fulness. But can this be shown ? ” 

Townsend. — “ It can be shown as regards the 
first gift, that of miracles; for we read (Mark 
xvi. 17): ‘These signs shall follow them that 
believe. In my name shall they cast out devils; 
they shall speak with new tongues ; they shall 
take up serpents ; and, if they drink any deadly 
thing, it shall not hurt them. They shall lay 
hands on the sick, and they shall recover.’ 
So, also (Luke x. 9-17), we read that Jesus 
authorized the seventy whom he sent out ‘to 
heal the sick’; and, when they returned, they 
said that ‘even the devils were subject to 
them.’ The power of miracles, therefore, was 
not confined to the twelve.” 

Doctor Hunter. — “ And certainly the same 
is true of the gift of the Holy Ghost, and the 
knowledge of truth which it communicated. 
For instance, the apostle John says to Chris- 


*The reyised version says, “The two oldest Greek manu- 
scripts, and some other authorities, omit from verse 9 to the 


THE TWELVE 


1 1 1 


tians generally, ‘Ye have an unction (or chris- 
tening) from the Holy One, and ye know all 
things,’ and ‘ need not that any man teach 
you.’ ” 

The minister. — “ But, granting that these- 
two gifts were not peculiar to the apostles, can 
the same be said of the other two, — the keys, 
and the power to forgive sin ? ” 

Deacon Herbert. — “ What do you understand 
by this power of the keys ? ” 

The minister. — “ The power of admitting 
into the Church, or excluding from it. To bind 
and loose, I suppose, means to shut and open, as 
the doors in ancient times were fastened with 
ropes.” 

“Do you suppose,” said the deacon, “that 
this power of excluding from the Church below 
is followed always by exclusion from heaven,, 
and the reverse ? ” 

The minister. — “Not unless the person who 
admits or excludes another is infallible, and can 
know certainly the condition of another’s heart. 
Even the Church of Rome does not pretend that 
its excommunication from the earthly Church is 
always followed by excommunication from, 
heaven.” 


II2 


DEACON HEEBEEt’s BIBLE-CLASS 


“ Then,” said the deacon, “ this cannot be the 
true explanation ; for our Saviour says that 
what his disciples bind qn earth is bound in 
heaven.” 

“ That is true,” said the minister ; “ and, be- 
sides, if the keys mean the authority to admit 
or exclude from the visible Church, that author- 
ity is necessarily not confined to the apostles, 
for somebody, in every age, must have this 
authority. But what, then, do you yourself 
understand by the keys?” 

The deacon. — “Not the authority to admit 
or exclude from the visible external Church, 
but the power of admitting or not admitting 
into the invisible and real Church. The keys ai*e 
those deep convictions of truth which, by being 
expressed, produce like convictions in the minds 
of others, but, if not expressed, leave them desti- 
tute of faith, and therefore away from Christ. 
If I am right, it is clear that the keys are 
possessed by all Christians in proportion to the 
depth and clearness of their convictions of 
truth. But, in any case, you see that the gift of 
the keys could not have been confined to the 
apostles. It was transmitted to their suc- 
cessors ; and the question is, merely. Who were 


THE TWELVE 


their successors ? Some say, The popes ; others 
say, The bishops or clergy; I say. All real 
GhristiansP 

The minister. — “But what shall we say of 
the other gift, that of forgiving sin ?” 

The deacon. — “Precisely the same thing. 
No one claims, not even the Roman priest, that 
he has the j^ower of forgiving sin, except where 
the sinner has true penitence and faith. But 
every one else, surely, can forgive sin in the 
same way. Each one of us may tell a man that 
God forgives him his sin, if he is truly penitent. 
But we can only make him believe it in propor- 
tion to our own faith. He who has the strong- 
est faith in God’s forgiving love has, therefore, 
the most of the apostles’ power of forgiving 
sins.” 

Townsend. — “You seem to give a new view 
of the question of apostolic succession. You 
believe those are the successors of the apostles 
who succeed to their powers, and that all Chris- 
tians can be the successors of the apostles in this 
way.” 

“Exactly so,” said the deacon. “Those only 
can succeed to the apostles’ office who inherit 
their powers. For what is an office but a duty ; 


1 14 DEACON Herbert’s bible-class 

and how is duty determined except by ability? 
Wherever ability is given by God, there is also 
duty imposed, — nowhere else.” 

Mr. Warland. — “It seems that the only thing 
which was peculiar to the office of an apostle 
was to be a witness of Christ’s resurrection ; and 
this is the one thing which could not be trans- 
mitted, and in which they could have no suc- 
cessors.” 

Townsend. — “ And, on the other hand, the 
prerogative which bishops consider to have been 
transmitted to themselves, and in which they 
regard themselves to be especially the successors 
of the apostles, is the one thing never spoken 
of in the New Testament as belonging to the 
apostles at all ; namely, that of ordaining priests 
or ministers.” 

Deacon Herbert. — “ There is one point more 
which interests me in regard to the apostles. 
We have seen that their characters were very 
different, and that they make up a unity in va- 
riety, — a concord of different sounds. Thus 
they were able to see and manifest all sides of 
Christian truth. But thus, also, they represent 
every future tendency of the Christian Churchy 
— every one, I mean, which is based in a real 


THE TWELVE 


need of our nature or an actual sight of truth. 
Every great party in the Church has its head 
and leader in the company of the apostles. 
We may each of us say with truth, and in a 
good sense, ‘ I am of Paul, I am of Peter, I am 
of John.’ This view furnishes a remedy for 
exclusiveness. Paul, the theologian, who be- 
lieved in Faith, did not excommunicate James, 
the practical apostle, who believed in Works. 
Peter did not denounce his brother Paul for 
having many things in his Epistles hard to be 
understood. None of them called John a mys- 
tic or a pantheist, or objected to the Epistle of 
James as a mere moral essay.” 

Dr. Hunter. — “ I am glad to see that the Ra- 
tionalists and Naturalists also have a leader in 
the Church in Thomas Didymus, Avho wished to 
put his fingers into the print of the nails, and 
needed material evidence in order to believe. I 
am a little inclined to take Saint Thomas for my 
own leader. I have a tendency toward the same 
kind of doubt; and it is consoling to see that 
Thomas was not excommunicated for his unbe- 
lief, but that his Master gave him the evidence 
for which he asked.” 

“Very true,” said the deacon: “let us be as 
charitable to each other as the apostles were.” 


IX. 

NICODEMUS AND THE NEW BIRTH PART I. 

This evening, at the Bible-class, Deacon 
Herbert read to us the third chapter of John, 
which contains the account of the visit of Nico- 
demus, and the conversation of Jesus with him 
concerning the Hew Birth, preceded by the 
verses in the second chapter which state that 
Jesus knew what was in man, possessing that 
knowledge of men’s inward motives and 
thoughts which is illustrated in the course of 
this conversation. When he had read the 
chapter, he said, “ What did Jesus mean by say- 
ing to Hicodemus, in the third verse, ‘ Except 
a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom 
of God’?” 

Dr. Hunter. — “ He meant to say that to be- 
come his disciple implied a great change. It 
was like beginning a new life. He saw, per- 
haps, that Hicodemus did not appreciate how 
great this change would be, and that, although he 
was a good man, and recognized that there was 
something divine about Jesus, and admitted that 
he was a teacher from God, he wished to derive 


NICODEMXJS AND THE NEW BIRTH I17 

l^enefit from his instruction, without giving up 
the advantages of his present position. He 
could not ‘ give up all ’ to follow Jesus, and 
therefore could not become his disciple.” 

Mr. W arland. — “ His case, then, seems par- 
allel to that of the young man who was very 
rich, and whom Jesus directed to sell all he had, 
and give to the poor. The sacrifice required in 
the one case was that of riches ; in the other, 
that of influence, position, and a well-earned 
reputation. They were both ‘ not far from the 
kingdom of heaven ’ ; but, to enter into it^ they 
must both leave their old life behind them, and 
begin a new one. They were both possessed by 
their possessions, — held fast by what they 
held, — and were unequal to the effort.” 

Deacon Herbert. — “ What do we know about 
the position of Nicodemus ? ” 

Townsend. — “From John hi. 1, it appears 
that he was a Pharisee, and a ruler of the Jews. 
From John vii. 60, it appears that he was one 
of the great Council, and that he claimed for 
Jesus, in the Council, the right of trial accord- 
ing to the law ; and, from John xix. 39, that at 
the time of the death of Jesus he was probably 
n secret disciple, like Joseph of Arimathea, 


ii8 DEACON Herbert’s bible-class 

whom he assisted in embalming the body of 
Jesus. I find that Olshausen remarks in his 
commentary, ‘We may suppose Nicodemus to 
have been a pure, earnest, true-minded man^ 
standing on the basis of the law, who perceived 
something elevated in Jesus, was moved by the 
miracles, but hardly knew what to think of 
him.’” 

Alice. — “ He was a sort of Mr. Feeble-Mind, 
perhaps ; a little timid, and somewhat unde- 
cided.” 

Dr. Hunter. — “ As all men are apt to be who 
have anything to lose. It is property which 
makes us cowards, whether it be in the form of 
money, or of reputation, or of carefully formed 
opinions. Conservatism is necessarily timid, 
whatever be the object we seek to conserve.” 

Mr. Warland. — “Do you think it possible, 
then, that a man who has no stock of goodness, 
or virtuous habit, may sometimes show more 
courage in following an inward call of God 
than a better man ? ” 

“Possibly,” said Deacon Herbert. “We do 
not like to lose anything which has cost ug 
trouble; least of all, reputation, influence, a 
good name. But what is the meaning of the 


NICODEMUS AND THE NEW BIRTH I19 

new birth ? What is it to be born again, or to 
be born from above ? for I find, by my ‘ English- 
man’s Greek Concordance,’ that the word here 
translated ‘ again ’ also means ‘ from above.’ 
The same word, in fact, is used in the thirty- 
first verse of this chapter, and is there trans- 
lated ‘from above.’ ‘He that cometh from 
above, is above all’ ; and also James i. 17 ; iii. 
15-17.” 

The minister. — “There are two theories on 
this subject, which seem to be exactly opposite 
to each other. The first is that of the Roman 
Catholics, and, I believe, of the early Church, 
and also that of the High Church Episcopa- 
lians, — that regeneration is the same thing as 
baptism. Regeneration, they think, is the com- 
ing into outward communion with the Church, 
and becoming a member of the same through 
baptism, which is accompanied, however, by 
some inward, mysterious grace. This view is 
supported by Titus iii. 5, where the “ washing of 
regeneration” is spoken of. The other view, 
held by orthodox Protestants, considers regen- 
eration to be an inward change, produced by 
the power of truth and the influence of the Holy 
Spirit. This view is supported by 1 Peter i. 23, 


120 DEACON Herbert’s bible class 

where this change is ascribed to “ the W ord of 
the living God.” 

Townsend.— “ These two views seem, in- 
deed, to be opposed to each other.” 

• The minister. — “But in this passage Jesus 
seems to unite and adopt both views. It is to 
be ‘ born of water and of the Spirit.’ It is out- 
ward and inward, — a new inward life fed by 
God in the soul, and a new outward life begin- 
ning with baptism.” 

Townsend. — “ He mentions water, to be sure, 
in the fifth verse ; but in the sixth and the eighth 
he lays the whole stress on being born of the 
Spirit.” • 

Mr. Warland. — “Exactly so, — which shows 
that the inward change is the essential one. 
The principle of the new life is the influence of 
God’s Spirit in the heart ; but this principle 
must be manifested outwardly in baptism, or in 
whatever way it can best express itself.” 

Deacon Herbert. — “ So, in the Sermon on the 
Mount, Jesus lays the greatest stress on inward 
goodness, happiness, and religion, and yet says, 
‘ Let your light shine before men, that they may 
see your good works.’ ” 

The minister. — “Christianity is a new life. 


NICODEMUS AND THE NEW BERTH 


121 


It is an eternal life, or a life of God, abiding 
within us. It is to the soul what the soul itself 
is to the body, — the principle of activity and 
growth. This new life has its beginning, or birth, 
which is regeneration. It has its food, or nour- 
ishment, which is the life of Christ, loved, under- 
stood, and imitated. We might add other 
analogies, were it necessary.” 

Townsend. — “What Nicodemus needed was 
the inward change, I suppose, — to be born of 
the Spirit. He was a good man, but he needed 
a new inward principle, — a principle of love 
and life.” 

Dr. Hunter. — “ But he needed the outward 
change, too, did he not? He was afraid to con- 
fess Jesus openly, and he needed to take that 
step before he could obtain the inward life. 
We must be willing to do our duties if we 
expect spiritual aid from above.” 

Townsend. — “But the aid must come first, 
or how could he obtain strength to do his duty ? 
What he needed was a new spirit of faith and 
courage; an inward change first, then the out- 
ward change would come.” 

Dr. Hunter. — “InTo. It is plain that the 
thing which kept him back was that he was 


122 


DEACON Herbert’s bible-class 


unwilling to make an open confession of his 
faith. The outward step taken, the inward life 
would come.” 

Deacon Herbert. — “We seem to have the 
Catholic and the Protestant view of regenera- 
tion, even in our own Bible-class. We will re- 
sume this subject at our next meeting.” 


X. 

REGEXERATIOX PART IT. 

When we had all taken our places this even- 
ing, Deacon Herbert said : “ In our discussion, I 
will adopt the following method of division. Let 
us ask: — 

“ 1. What is it to be born again? 

“ 2. What must we do to be born again ? 

“ 3. How shall we know that we are born 
again ? 

“ In other words, let us consider the nature^ 
the means^ and the emdences of the new birth. 
And, first, I will ask Dr. Hunter, What is re- 
generation ? ” 

Dr. Hunter. — “ For the present, at least, my 
answer shall be this : To become a member of 
the Christian Church by baptism, with all which 
this naturally implies. It implies, of course, 
that one should believe in Christianity as a re- 
ligion from God. It implies that one should 
wish to become a Christian, should wish to lead 
a Christian life. But belief in Christianity and 
the wish to lead a Christian life do not make a 
man a Christian till he begins to lead this life. 


124 DEACON Herbert’s bible-class 

The first step which he takes is the beginning. 
This first step is an outward profession, or ex- 
pression, or confession of his intention. But, in 
order to express his purpose, he must do it in a 
way which people will understand. If he should 
announce his purpose in an unknown tongue, he 
would not be understood, and of course his con- 
fession would be no confession. Now, in the 
vernacular language of Christianity, baptism is 
the rite which expresses clearly to all men this 
purpose of becoming a Christian. This, there- 
fore, is regeneration.” 

Townsend. — “ But suppose a man is baptized 
and stops there, being no better than he was 
before, as has been the case a thousand times, 
both in heathen and Christian countries : what 
then ? ” 

Dr. Hunter. — “Then it is evident that his 
regeneration is of no use to him. He has begun 
the journey, but has stopped on the way : never- 
theless, the journey is begun.” 

Townsend. — “You say that the outward act 
of being baptized implies that a man believes 
in Christianity and intends to be a Christian. 
Usually, perhaps, but not necessarily. Suppose 
he is a hypocrite or an infidel, and is baptized 


REGENERATION 


I2S 

merely for the sake of some temporal advantage. 
Is his baptism in that case the beginning of a 
Christian life or not ? ” 

Dr. Hunter. — “ I think it is. He has taken 
the first right step. No matter what his motive 
is, so far he has done well. This first step may 
lead him to take a second. It may be the 
means of his acquiring the faith and the heart 
which he needs. At all events, it is the first 
step, consequently the beginning of the Christian 
life, consequently regeneration.” 

Townsend. — “ But you said that baptism was 
the understood expression of Christian faith. If 
that faith does not exist, then he who is baptized 
says something which is not true, and baptism 
is simply telling a lie. Now I ask. Can a lie be 
the first step in the Christian life ? You say the 
hypocrite, when baptized, has done at least 
one good thing. Is telling a lie doing a good 
thing ? ” 

Dr, Hunter. — “ I see clearly that, if I am to 
maintain my position, I must give up the out- 
works, and fall back upon the fortress. I give 
up to you the inward part of baptism. I say 
nothing about its meaning. I say, simply, that 
we are commanded to be baptized ; and that,. 


126 DEACOIT HEEBEKt’s BIBLE-CLASS 

therefore, being baptized is a right thing in it- 
self, apart from any meaning attached to it. 
Just so it is right to pay our debts, no matter 
what our motive is. Baptism is right per 5e, 
simply because it is commanded; and thus we 
may justify the baptism of children, who, of 
course, have no faith to express.” 

Townsend. — “You regard it, then, as a duty, 
merely because it has been commanded ; but, 
if so, he who obeys it must believe that it has 
been commanded, and that by divine authority. 
Therefore, he must believe in Christianity.” 

Dr. Hunter. — “Then I must maintain that it 
is something good in itself, and has some inher- 
ent power to helj) us, no matter what be our 
motive in being baptized.” 

The minister. — “You thus have been driven, 
quite logically, to take the ground of the Roman 
Catholic Church, which regards baptism as a 
sacrament, and an opus operatum^ conveying 
^race to the soul by some inherent and myste- 
rious power, and hence follows, as logically, that 
those kings were the best missionaries who con- 
quered the heathen nations, and compelled them 
to be baptized on pain of death. According to 
this theory, such converts became real Chris- 


REGENERA.TIOIT 


127 


tians, and were truly regenerate. But this- 
makes of baptism a mere magical ceremony, 
and regeneration a thing of no consequence ; for 
such converts are like infants which die as soon 
as they are born. They lose their Christianity 
as soon as they receive it.” 

Dr. Hunter. — “ Why so, if Christianity be a 
system of religious education and moral culture, 
and if the Christian Church be a school for 
sj^iritual education? We send unwilling chil- 
dren to school; and, though they go unwill- 
ingly, yet they learn when there.” 

The minister. — “ The doctor has stated very 
strongly the arguments for baptismal regenera^ 
tion. This theory makes of the Christian 
Church a discipline, a school, a system of ex- 
ternal influences. So far, it is good; but it 
destroys freedom. It omits personal responsi- 
bility, and therefore leads necessarily to spirit- 
ual despotism on the one side and moral weak- 
ness on the other.” 

Deacon Herbert. — “ What, then, is your 
answer to the question ? What is it to he horn 
again f ” 

The minister. — “It is the beginning of in- 
ward life in the soul; the beginning of real 


128 DEACox Herbert’s bible-class 

iaith, penitence, and love. It is the change 
from the death of sin to the life of righteous- 
ness.” 

Townsend. — “ But have we not always some 
^ood feelings and desires in the soul ? If regen- 
eration is beginning to feel right, is not every- 
body regenerate? for does not every one feel 
rightly at some time or other?” 

The minister. — “I understand by it begin- 
ning to live with the permanent purpose of serv- 
ing God and man. We are not children of God 
till we begin to live from this motive.” 

Townsend. — “ And is it in the power of all to 
live so, or is it not? Can one who has never 
heard of God or of Christ do this ? ” 

The minister. — “No; but every one born 
and brought up in Christian lands may.” 

Townsend. — “It would seem, then, that we 
need outward Christian helps and influences to 
lead inwardly a Christian life. These outward 
helps are the Christian Church again in one 
form or another. It would seem, then, that we 
ought to combine the idea of the minister with 
that of the doctor.” 

Deacon Herbert. — “How, then, do you de- 
flne regeneration?” 


EEGEXERATION 


129 


Townsend. — “ It is ‘ to be born of water and 
of the spirit.’ It is to begin a new inward life 
of love, which must necessarily show itseK (or 
express itself, as the doctor had it) in an out- 
ward life of obedience. It must be a life that is 
something permanent; not transient good feel- 
ings or transient good actions, but adherence to 
one fixed idea ; adopting one permanent aim ; 
living from God for man.” 

Deacon Herbert. — “ I think our question has 
now received every answer which can be given. 
To be born again is to begin the Christian life. 
According to the doctor, this beginning of the 
• Christian life was an outward action alone. Ac- 
cording to the minister, it was an inward 
feeling or sentiment alone. According to Mr. 
Townsend, it was both an outward act and 
an inward idea. There can be no other defi- 
nition which will not faU under one of these 
three classifications. Now, we have seen that 
the outward act by itself is not enough, and, 
in like manner, that an inward feeling by it- 
self is not enough ; but that combined they act 
and react upon each other as the twofold ele- 
ments of real life. The new birth, then, is the 
beginning of a new outward life, guided by new 


130 DEACON HEKBERT’s BIBLE-CLASS 

inward convictions and motives. But let us 
now ask, What must we do to be born again? 
and this question we shall leave for our next 
meeting.” * 

*The continuation of this subject does not appear in these 
chapters, but Mr, Clarke’s ideas may be found in the fifth lect-^ 
ure in “ Essentials and Non-essentials in Religion.” 


XI. 

THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 

Deacon Herbert read to us, this evening, a 
short essay upon the Sermon on the Mount, 
translated by our friend, the Cambridge scholar, 
George Classic, from some German writer, I be- 
lieve Dr. Hase, who has written a Life of Jesus. 
He compares the Sermon on the Mount, as it 
stands in the fifth, sixth, and seventh chapters 
of Matthew, with the discourse contained in the 
sixth chapter of Luke, and, after weighing the 
arguments for and against their identity, c »n- 
cludes that both the evangelists intended to 
give an account of the same discourse, the one 
which was delivered near Capernaum. He 
thinks, however, that, with the intention of giv- 
ing a picture of Jesus as a teacher, they may 
have collected around what they remembered of 
this particular discourse other sayings of Jesus, 
which were uttered at different times. He does 
not consider this to be an ordination sermon, on 
the occasion of inaugurating the twelve, nor to 
have been addressed to his disciples exclusively, 
but through them to the nation, and to all 


132 


DEACON IIEEBERT’s BIBLE-CLASS 


Chritendonx, and to be, as it were, the Magna 
Charta^ or religious Constitution, of. the King- 
dom of Heaven. He describes the contents of 
the sermon thus : — 

Introduction. — Addressed to those feeling 
their spiritual needs, and longing for a kingdom 
of love (Matt. v. 1-16). 

Part 1. — The relation of the Kingdom of 
Heaven to the Jewish Theocracy, described in 
general, and with single illustrations, as the con- 
trast of inward and external righteousness 
(Matt. V. 16-48). 

Part 2. — The contrast of Christian obedi- 
ence and Pharisaic righteousness, in almsgiv- 
ing, fasting, and prayer (Matt. vi. 1-18). 

Part 3. — The temporal and the eternal: 
the supreme value of the latter,' resulting, when 
made the aim of life, as joyful activity in the 
former (Matt. vi. 18-34). 

Part 4. — Miscellaneous truths and precepts 
(xMatt. vii. 1-12). 

Conclusion. — Practical application. The ne- 
cessity of changing all theory into love and 
action. 

Hase admits that, as Jesus did not discover 
or invent the moral law, some similar truths 


THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT 1 33 

may be ^ound in the teachings of wise men in 
former days. He thinks it pedantic or fanatical 
to. take all the precepts of Christ literally, and 
does not consider the Sermon on the Mount as 
containing the whole of Christianity, but only 
one side of it. 

Having read this essay. Deacon Herbert said, 
“ What do you think of the account just given 
of the contents of the Sermon on the Mount?” 

Mr. Warland. — “Here is another, a little 
different, which I once drew up for a Sunday- 
school lesson”: — 

ANALYSIS OF TUB SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 

Its subject, the spiritual nature of Christianity. 

1 . True happiness is from within ; the state of the heart 
(Matt. V. 1-12). 

2. But must shine out in the life (13-20). 

3. Duty is also within, — rules the heart (20-48). 

4. And based on religion, which must also be inward (vi. 
1-18). 

5. And must be supreme (19-24). 

6. For outward things, repose on God (25-34). 

7. For inward blessings, pray to God (vii. 7-11). 

8. The evidence of true faith is the Life (12-23). 

9. Its end is security or peace (24-27). 

Dr. Hunter. — “I should say that the subject 
of the Sermon on the Mount is the importance 


134 DEACON Herbert’s bible-class 

of practical goodness, as opposed to doctrines 
and ceremonies. It is the text-book of practical 
Christianity. There is nothing in it about sacra- 
ments, or ceremonial religion; nothing about 
popes or bishops ; nothing about Sabbaths, 
churches, or festivals. Even public worship 
seems rather to be condemned than recom- 
mended. None of the doctrines of the creeds 
are even alluded to in this sermon. No con- 
troversialist can get a text out of it for or 
against the Trinity, total depravity, the atone- 
ment, three orders in the ministry, infant bap- 
tism, or adult baptism, and the like. All is 
practical ; all goes to life and action.” 

Alice. — “I was just going to say that I 
thought the subject of the sermon to be a state- 
ment of the intuitive, inward, transcendental 
nature of goodness. The doctor thinks the Ser- 
mon on the Mount makes Christianity all out- 
ward. It seems to me that it makes it all 
inward. I should call this sermon the text- 
book of the Transcendentalists.” 

“ To me it has appeared to be the text-book 
of reformers,” said I. “ It is very radical. So- 
cialists may quote the blessings on the poor, and 
the woes pronounced on the rich, in Luke. The 


THE SERMOX OX THE MOUNT 135 

Non-resistants may quote the passages in Matt. 
V. 39 and the following verses. Come-outers 
may quote the text, ‘ When thou prayest, enter 
into thy closet.’ Those who object to taking 
oaths find their argument in the words, ‘ Swear 
not at all.’ And those who think it wrong to 
hold property may quote the passage, ‘ Lay not 
up treasures on earth.’” 

Deacon Herbert. — “And yet the conserv- 
atives might find arguments in this sermon for 
their opinions likewise, in those passages where 
Jesus says he has ‘not come to destroy’ any- 
thing, and that no one must break ‘ the least of 
the commandments,’ or teach others to do so, 
till they are fulfilled entirely ; that is, replaced 
by something better. Dr. Hunter thinks the 
sermon all practical ; but what stress it lays on 
the state of the heart and the will ! Our sister 
Alice thinks it transcendental ; but how far it 
is from mysticism ! How wholly at home 
among the things of actual, common, social 
life ! Yet I think I could find in it a basis for 
doctrines also. On the whole, it seems to me 
that this sermon contains the two sides of hu- 
man life in their true equipoise : the inward and 
the outward ; the ideal and the actual ; the life 


136 DEACON HEEBERT^S BIBLE-CLASS 

of God in the soul, showing itself in a life of 
usefulness in all human relations.” 

Townsend. — “ I am impressed, in reading 
this discourse, with its manner quite as much as 
its matter. I understand why it should be said 
at the close that ‘ the people were astonished ; 
for he taught them as one having authority, and 
not as the Scribes.’ It is different from all 
other teaching. There is nothing of theory, of 
opinion, of speculation, of argument, of demon- 
stration, of rhetoric. It is a pure statement of 
spiritual facts ; of the highest truth seen clearly 
in distinct outline, and described as one might 
describe a tree or a house before his eyes. 
Jesus seems to have spoken out of his heart 
and inward life ; and never was a life deep and 
rich as his in spiritual insight. It is ‘ the Son 
of man who is in heaven,’ who comes out of 
heaven to teach us what is there. He ‘comes 
down from heaven,’ as the thought which we 
utter comes out of the mind, and yet remains 
in the mind, too. The greatest teachers of the 
world seem only theorizers and speculators 
beside him.” 

Mr. Warland. — “This view I had not taken. 
I supjDosed that his teaching ‘with authority’ 
meant official authority.” 


THE SEKMON ON THE MOUNT 137 

Townsend. — “ It cannot mean that, since at 
this time Jesus did not allow himself to be 
known as the Messiah. And, besides, in that 
case, his authority would have been the same as 
that of the Scribes^ not different. They claimed 
official authority.” 

Deacon Herbert. — “Yet the authority of 
Jesus was not wholly in the manner. It was 
not in the tone of his voice, nor in any gesture 
or demeanor. I have known persons who had 
a great deal of that kind of authority, whose 
looks, tones, and deportment seemed to say, ‘ I 
am Sir Oracle ; when I ope my mouth, let no 
dog bark.’ The authority of Jesus was not 
official nor dogmatical. It was the authority of 
truth, insight, knowledge. This authority al- 
ways belongs to him who knows what he is 
talking about.” 

Alice. — “I am struck with the confidence 
which Jesus shows in the capacity of the human 
soul to understand, love, and obey the truth. 
The learned men did not understand him. But 
the common people seem to have understood 
him well enough, and to have heard him gladly. 
To the Samaritan woman he taught that God 
is a Spirit, and his religion spiritual. And he 


138 DEACON Herbert’s bible-class 

does not scruple to tell the poor, ignorant, and 
wicked people that they must be perfect as God 
in heaven. Who, before or since, ever had such 
confidence in human nature as he ? ” 

Townsend. — “ I also notice in his teaching 
the perfection of tact and art. He says every- 
thing in the most effective way. He utters the 
most abstract truths in the most concrete form, 
vast generalizations in the dress of homely par- 
ticulars. The paradoxical form awakens curi- 
osity ; the happy illustration delights the under- 
standing; the picturesque language enchants 
the imagination ; and the opening vision . of 
eternal laws gives the reason, the conscience, 
and the heart their daily bread. In answering 
his hearers’ questions, he replies to what they 
think as well as to what they say, and so an- 
swers at the same time the eternal questions of 
the human soul. His actions illustrated his 
teachings ; his teachings explained his conduct. 
Thus, though he never wrote down anything 
with pen and ink, his teachings were engraved 
on the living tables of the heart. So we may 
still repeat, after another eighteen centuries, 
that ‘ never man spake like this man.’ ” 


I 




1 

« 





:j 




♦ 





\ 




» 

I 















.f - 






4 





« 


# 1 


# H 

I 

♦ - 





P 


« 


•I . 



I 


7 



> 


I 




#1 


I 


$ 


% • 



4 


I 

% 


/ 



t 


> 



* 

» 



% ^ 





4 

9 


• • 




ft 








\ 


« 




I 


t ft 


f 


I 


• f 

^ ft 





^ • 


• J-r ^jV-V- ;^- 

-?'•♦■ ■*' 

.. ‘S- 

V,- ';V#^ 


..- v' w.'' 



-^L-. r . ► r .* “ i 

■ - - •':. t - ■ ■’■ ■ - «v’"^..-> ^ •' ^'- 5 

^ ■ • i^-' ‘ ’^T ■ ■'* ' . -f ^ ' ’ 




** - 

> • '* ^ i ^ - 1 ^- 



*• /' 


r 






, rw.- 

\ 

5^ ./ ■ 

i V - * *‘ 

« 

..'’v' 

*» 

'> • ^ 


« * 

' -■. r 

? 








-“i A 

4 


^ v... ■ 


% • 




1 * 


■■ , 1 - ^ ■* 



‘A 


- 1 -' 

wi?:' ■'►' "■ 
^ * 


■ .V 


'f 




« 

< 


V 'Vi.' i * * .ja 

. ■ '* •< 


V- 

^ ' 


' •'T^ ♦V ( 

* • aT • *» ^^**« fei** r* 


« 


' . ^ • • » V • j J ' > > 


ft... 
♦*'*^* 
V 


^ . 


^ -L. • -• 
< ^ . ♦yj 


• 4 . 




^ 


' *•* % tij^* > * • • 


t 


^ 






» 


V Tr 

i ■• N 




-1 ,fV' 



5 ***^' '•'> ’ . V >'* ^ 

r X ‘ , ^ .** ^jC '* 


/■ 



'- -V 

' ft. - 




.r»! 







V 



> *if "■ •‘^ ‘'v' ■ V V- • ” ' . “■ V«*' 

Se A?;;^ V’- 

ftiiS 





'r t ' 









V ^ 


" ' -- Mr ~ 


t •! 


■r% 3 > 4 S 








ft ^ 




^. . .41. 




% I ’ 


'*.: >• . • 




y .• 

• 1 


■ *» 

( . 


-V -% -•.. . 


r V 


*. ' 
t » 




< 


y . 






.• 1 

■, 








V 


•-» 




■> ■ 


...i. 


•rk 






. \ 


r 


•V -1 




j ^ 

11 • 


« 

« « 


4 ..-* ^ 




^ » 


r » / 


■s! 


.1, 


!> 


i 


I * I 


k • . 


t< 


•r • -v^ 


iwr> ; ' ■'* ■ •• ; 


/ 


'‘-V 




‘ -S.. 


4 ^ 


/> 


,# •v 


f H ‘ 

I ^ 


4 ' 

r 


^ t 

r * 

« » 

« • 

*• 






. ' ■ ’.'•■]• . .* • . y- ' ■. V‘ wj. ,‘ ':.>T;'I > . '.’•aJ!! 




I 

•> 


r , . ft » 






' f 


»-> rj 










v:<-; 


>J 


/- 






^rv4 




:/ 


5»i' 


r> 


r'i./'.'N.?:’- >1 


'•> 


'rv^y 


















,:^^-c 4., 




y/ 






-'^.• 


f>A*v: 


' / V » Vy 






' - • > « 


Mf" ..«**« 
* V^ ' \ 


•^4 


y Jr • •»' 

'/t t • 




o;- 




*•* ' 


NvJ^ 










«■/. 1’ 




:<- 








V, 




‘^T»’ 


-.•V «.•.•■ 


• v. 




?>a 


.v«. - 




r-^'r.v-j 


Ji'*' :• 




.M- 




rrS 




ta* •- • 

i'-.' 


.>5 










fc-T'« 




5* 




• w* 




■jr*. 


«.v w- 






4 


? '.< ^ r» 


r*.*-i* 'V. 
•• » . 


I” 




rt 


•-» %- 


f»*.. 


« . ' 








u 












'.v 




VI 






^.1 


*4 * > 


v'.V 


%■ 


•-^ * •• 


Vi-*; 






-rSZ 


t^n 




•>? \j>.* 




v«i 


*• 








•-v-y 




■V! 






% 










I. 










L^'-s>:. 








■iTi 






k>» 


r*— 


* * 


/* 








% 


r'T. 


t Vi 


y'-fc -i 




L-^ 




(•A 


iy>x . 

•2* «.■ • —AM « # . . • . ^ 








10.’ 












i 




» •' * ^F —5^ ^ 




r:^ 




.\\A' 




.2^ 


LG^-. 


/, 




A.-V. 


f/?’ 


i'f< 




^T.\ 


1^ 


♦ i? . 4c •. 






jC; 


r** 




^4 ^ 






rvC< 


-_• •- • *7 






••r !-■ 




in 


:K- 


A^l:; 




*-/r- 




LV-'*-— 




l^A r *::;../L: 






U.i-. 


■r.- 






. / 


'>iti 


■ <*,< 


•t»'o 








s» 


:] 


•.vi/.v-.'X/:;-^ 








• vXi^' 




-..‘j 


•'*. 




.A-.-y 


V— . 










V: 








>:.*T- 






■ »r:-..- 


:Sr’ 






r ::i 




■ -. 4* , 








A 






^‘^i 


Xi 


r-- 


r.“».l-‘i.. 




^t-r: 




?>*.■ 


V'v;; 


■<L 


} 








wf. 


ii*: 


«■ 




• • 








DDDlHbbTMflT 




